Friday, May 30, 2008
Pennsylvania - State Rep. John Galloway (D., Bucks) will announce legislation today that would allow municipalities to pass laws restricting dangerous dogs. Galloway said he was inspired to draft the bill after experiencing a pit bull attack first hand. A 5-year old girl and her uncle were walking the family dog when the pit bull attacked. The little girl and her dog Luna will attend the event.
A recent attempt by the City of Reading to enact its own local dog ordinance was overturned by Commonwealth Court, which ruled that state dog law supersedes local laws. In February, the court threw out an ordinance that placed restrictions on owners of "aggressive" dog breeds, which were defined as those responsible for 40% percent of dog bites in a year.
Owners of aggressive breeds had to pay $500 a year for permits for unsterilized dogs and use muzzles and heavy leashes on dogs in public. According to the Reading Eagle, the law is credited with helping to reduce dog bites from 130 in 1999 to 33 in 2006. We hope Galloway's legislation makes it to the House floor. We understand this may not be too easy in the state of Pennsylvania.
03/14/08: Anti-Tethering Group Pushes for Law in Pennsylvania
Please donate to support our work
DogsBite.org is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »
| 5/30/2008 3:30 PM |
This has always bothered me...its not "discrimination" when a city or town regulates the ownership and management of domesticated animals. Even if you have the land, you may not own a horse if your property is not zoned for livestock/horses. That is primarily because of the manure/smell, and its possible effect on the property values of surrounding residential properties.
There are, no doubt, gentle and harmless domestically raised wildlife....lions and bears, for example...who no doubt could live peacfully as pets, if properly contained and managed. We don't allow this, because the potential these animals have to kill or harm innocent people. Society has determined that the existence of "safe" captive lions and bears does not negate the risk posed by the majority of these animals.
We must apply the same reasoning to pit bulls....the existence of non-aggressive dogs does not negate the potential danger the majority of them pose; since so many owners claim they "never saw it coming" when the dogs maul someone, we must assume that most owners cannot safely evaluate their own dogs temperament. There fore, society must regulate breeding and ownership of these dogs.
| 5/30/2008 6:02 PM |
That's because a Pit Bull is given a false presumption of domestication despite being more dangerous that it's wild counterparts.
Some states allow the ownership of wolf-hybrids but it is typically tightly regulated. Pit bull breeders currently thrive in the blindspot of the law.
| 5/30/2008 8:10 PM |
Pit bulls are more dangerous than wild animals. Wild animals have a sense of self-preservation. Pit bulls have had that bred out of them and they will stop at nothing, even if they are killed in the process. It is not discrimination to understand the history of a breed and to expect certain traits that were bred in to become evident in a dog of that breed. Pick any breed, pick any trait, and people do this everyday without complain until you combine the trait of aggression and pit bulls. Laws of genetics do not stop just because you call a dog a pit bull.