Basset Hounds Forum banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,042 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Found this on our Canadian Show Dogs list(hope it's okay to post this.....):

You have my permission to cross post this ruling. It can be seen here
-- John Wilders


www.waf-legislation.org/courtruling.htm
Exclusive By Nick Mays
BREED SPECIFIC Legislation was dealt a savage blow last week in an historic
victory for American campaigners when the Supreme Court in Alabama ruled
that there was no genetic evidence that one breed of dog was more dangerous
than another, simply because of its breed.
Around the world, anti-BSL campaigners are rejoicing at the ruling that
drew on evidence provided by genuine canine experts, which was favoured by
the judges over subjective evidence, put forward by veterinarians and
politicians. The court ruling and the evidence used may now be legitimately
used to fight BSL in other countries such as Germany and Australia, as well
as other US States. In the UK, the Dangerous Dogs Act could possibly be
open to a direct legal challenge in the same way.
The action in Alabama was brought by the Washington Animal Foundation (WAF)
against the city of Huntsville, which had claimed that American Pit Bull
Terriers were 'genetically dangerous'.
The case centred on four Pit Bulls held in an animal shelter and adopted by
three local women.
The dogs were survivors of a group of over 50 Pit Bulls seized in a raid on
a dog-fighting ring in April 2000. Half of the dogs died from injuries or
disease, whilst the reminder -including four puppies - were held at the
City pound and put up for adoption.
Shelia Tack, an emergency room nurse at Crestwood Hospital, adopted two
of the puppies that she named Justice and Elizabeth. Whilst they remained
impounded, she visited them twice a week.
The other puppies, David and Nellie, were adopted by Kay Nagel, a military
officer's wife and resident of Redstone Arsenal, and Loyce Fisher, a civil
service worker from Cullman.
However, the City Council refused to release the dogs, stating that they
were a potential danger to human beings, although none had apparently
displayed any aggression.
The matter was referred to court for a legal decision on the dogs' fate.
During a hearing last year, lawyers representing the city, Michael Fees and
Greg Burgess, told Madison County Circuit Judge Joe Battle the animals were
vicious and should not be rehomed.
The Women, who did not have a lawyer, argued the animals were never trained
to fight and conditioning can suppress any vicious tendencies the dogs
might have.
Judge Battle agreed and on Nov 13 2001, declared the four young Pit Bulls
were not dangerous because they were never trained to fight. The court
allowed the city to destroy 21 adult Pit Bulls which had been used for
fighting.
However, the City appealed Battle's ruling to the Alabama Supreme Court and
asked the court for an order preventing the women from taking custody of
the dogs.
At this point, Seattle-based WAF became involved in the case and appointed
Huntsville lawyer Mike Seibert to fight their case, based on evidence they
gathered to counter the City lawyer's claims that all Pit Bulls were
'genetically dangerous'.

The foundation hired veterinarian Dr. Alan Jones of Hazel Green to examine
the dogs. But the officers at the shelter do not allow anyone to have
physical contact with the pit bulls, even vet Jones.
"They looked fat and happy," he said. "They seemed starved for attention
and not aggressive at all"
Glen Bui, spokesman for WAF told a local newspaper that the dogs should be
released.
"I believe that the City of Huntsville is wasting thousands of taxpayers'
dollars attempting to destroy innocent dogs that were already given by the
circuit court to the three women,' he said.

WAF filed an Amicus (third party) submitting genetic proof that Pit Bulls
are not dangerous. The city of Huntsville were backed by the extremist
animal rights organisation PETA that Pit Bulls were genetically dangerous,
with evidence provided by veterinarians, none of whom was an expert in any
specific canine or genetical field.
WAF cited case laws under Due Process of the law, and stated that it was
unconstitutional to rule a specific breed of dog as 'dangerous' in this
way. They also claimed it was 'genocide' to try to eradicate the Pit Bull
breed.

WAF submitted evidence to the Supreme Court that they were able to provide:
Identification of expert treatises regarding the genetics of the breed in
question

2. Testing and studies regarding genetics verses environment as the
catalyst for a specific dog breed's aggression

3. Social contributions made by the American Pit Bull Terrier (i.e. as
Assistance Dogs, Search and Rescue Dogs etc.)

4. The associations brief assisted the court as it had substantial
knowledge concerning the issue before the court

5.The briefs filed by the City were insufficient to adequately address the
far reaching issues involving genetic breed bias

6. The Foundation read all briefs and believed that innocent pet owners and
innocent pets were not represented by either brief.
WAF co-founder Glen Bui told OUR DOGS this week: "The court granted WAF's
petition and allowed us 7 days to file amicus curiae. Myself along with
Attorney Mike Seibert worked on the amicus long hours into the night, while
WAF members Kay Nagel and Sheila Tack proofread and added input. It was
finished with less than one hour before the deadline to file and Shelia
raced to the US post office and sent it certified mail.

"Huntsville's entire case rested on affidavits from veterinarians claiming
they examined the four Pit Bull pups and that were would pose a danger to
the community because Pit Bulls are genetically dangerous. They also
claimed the women had no legal right to adopt the pups, this was also
addressed in the amicus brief."
On Friday, August 30, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in WAF's favour and
ordered that the dogs should be released for adoption, accepting the
evidence but forward by WAF that no breed of dog is genetically dangerous.
"This is fantastic news," said Bui. "The city could appeal against the
ruling, but I'd like to think they'll give way and release the dogs to
their new owners so that they can enjoy a good life. Two of them will be
trained as Search and Rescue Dogs; the other two will become pets. The Pit
Bulls have been evaluated and temperament tested before they are released,
they are being spayed and neutered. The city did tell the media that the
dogs would be released, so let's hope they keep their word."
Bui also told OUR DOGS this week: "For years the American Pit Bull Terrier
has been alleged to be dangerous because of its genetics. Never has WAF
found any genetic research proving
that. When we were asked by three Huntsville women for help, they told us
nobody else would help them, they had contacted everyone who fights BSL. We
knew the women had to face the Supreme Court and this was a very serious
case. We knew we had the genetic proof that no breed of dog is dangerous.
"We knew we also had statistics which proved the APBT has one of the best
temperaments out of 185 dog breeds along with a strong legal defence. Being
aware that never in the past had anyone ever argued the point, after
contemplating the outcome if the women lost, I decided to bring WAF into
the case, on the last day before the deadline for filing briefs in the
Supreme Court WAF petitioned for Amicus Curiae.

"This case set a standard for future cases concerning BSL and genetics. We
put several years of research into genetics and due process. We will use
the statistics in Ohio; we have received
assistance from state agencies in Ohio to investigate the Lucas County Dog
Warden rulings on BSL in that State, as Ohio is totally BSL-controlled. Dog
owners in Ohio really could use support right now.
"It was a long battle and now we have proved the American Pit Bull
terrier is not genetically dangerous."
© Nick Mays/Our Dogs Newspaper, 2002


Miriam Dalfen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
654 Posts
My two sense worth is that pit bulls are dangerous and unpredictable pets,dobermans and german shephards also fall into the category of unpredictable pets.This observation is based on being around them and seeing with my own eyes pets with no background of aggresive behaviour all of a sudden turn and attack humans and other dogs.
I would never own or trust the breeds I mentioned,in my opinion there only useful for gaurd dogs,attack dogs and in the fighting ring.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,902 Posts
A reminder that posts to the Politics Forum must be signed, if your name isn't evident from your user name. If you forget, you can edit your posts to sign your name. Unsigned posts will be deleted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
939 Posts
if you start to ban certain breeds where does it stop? these breeds are nasty lets ban them!!! these breeds bark to much lets ban them!!!! these breeds hunt lets ban them!!!! these breeds shed to much lets ban them!!!! get the point, ban nothing!!!! to much help from the Government is NOT a GOOD thing!!!!

[ July 03, 2003, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: pinehawk ]
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,042 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Speaking as a dog groomer, the two breeds I am most likely to get bitten by are Lhasa Apsos and Cocker Spaniels. Apparently Golden Retrievers are frequent biters as well, but I rarely have trouble with them. Chihuahuas strike fear into the hearts of the bravest groomer. Nobody talks of banning these breeds, or being afraid of them. My sister once required 7 stiches in her face from a chihuahua mix.

I once fostered a Pit Bull mix, he was the sweetest dog, fine with all my other dogs (between my dogs and fosters I had 15), the most dangerous thing about him was his tail, which was like a whip and never stopped wagging. In fact, it was split open at the end because he kept banging it against walls and furniture.

The main problem with pits is the type of people who like to own them, they are favourites of the type of idiot who thinks a mean dog is "cool".

Miriam Dalfen

[ July 04, 2003, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Soundtrack ]
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top