Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 2/22/2006 5:38:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 5:53:09 PM EDT by PCR-00]
I'm uncomfortable with the direction this can lead...



edit: www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5542804p-4990619c.html

Auburn’s dog rule now carries more bite

STEVE MAYNARD; The News Tribune
Published: February 22nd, 2006 02:30 AM



The Auburn City Council on Tuesday night branded pit bulls and several other breeds of dogs as potentially dangerous and required owners of those breeds to register their dogs.
Despite an outcry from about two-dozen dog owners, council members voted 7-0 to amend the city’s dangerous dog ordinance to make it breed-specific.

Councilman Bill Peloza said the ordinance revision will save human and animal lives in the long run.

“We need to protect our citizens,” Peloza said before the vote.

Auburn police have shot at attacking pit bulls five times since May, including twice so far this year.

But several dog owners said the problem was with irresponsible owners, not specific breeds.

Auburn resident Victoria Wiley, who owns a pit bull, said, “I don’t feel, as a responsible dog owner, I should be punished because other people don’t know how to handle their dogs.”

The revised ordinance will take effect in about two weeks.

Under the existing ordinance, dogs aren’t branded “potentially dangerous” until they’ve bitten once. Only if they attack a second time are they declared “dangerous” and put under strict controls.

Under the new ordinance, those restrictions will take effect after breeds tagged as potentially dangerous automatically become “dangerous” by biting once.

The city first considered tightening its rules after a pit bull killed a poodle- terrier named Fritz two years ago. The City Council proposed targeting pit bulls, then all dogs of more than 30 pounds.

But after complaints from breeders and dog owners, the council approved the less-restrictive measures in effect today.

Debbie Barrett of Auburn said Tuesday night that she fully supports the revised ordinance. She said her 170-pound Great Dane was attacked and injured by two pit bulls in August.

But Glen Bui, of the Belfair-based American Canine Foundation, said Auburn’s new dog ordinance “does nothing to target irresponsible owners.”

Bui said the new law conflicts with state law by branding certain breeds as potentially dangerous. He said his nonprofit group will sue the city of Auburn over the revision.

“We’ll see you in court,” he told the council Tuesday night.

Dog owners at Tuesday’s meeting, most of them pit bull owners, expressed frustration over the law and said they felt they were being unfairly singled out.

Julia Jones of East Pierce County, who suffers from seizures, said she needs her American pit bull terrier to protect her and pleaded with the council to do something else.

“I need her. She’s my service dog,” Jones said with her dog, Miss Bailey, at her side.

But Peloza insisted that a breed-specific law was necessary to curtail the number of dangerous dog attacks.

“One, to me, as an elected official, is one too many,” Peloza said.

Affected breeds

• Akita

• American pit bull terrier

• American Staffordshire terrier

• Bull terrier

• Cane Corso

• Dogo Argentino

• Dogue de Bordeaux

• Kuvasz

• Pit bull terrier

• Presa canario

• Tosa Inu

• Staffordshire bull terrier

• Any dog with an element of those breeds or appearing to look like those breeds Dog ordinance requirements



Owners would have to register all animals belonging to these breeds, at no charge, as “potentially dangerous.” After an attack, the dogs would be declared “dangerous” and owners would have to:

• Confine the dog to an enclosure with a warning sign

• Muzzle and leash the dog when outside the enclosure

• Have at least $250,000 in insurance or $250,000 in a bond payable to anyone injured by the dog

• Pay $100 per year to register the animal

• Have a microchip implanted by a veterinarian for identification

Penalties


Wh­at if someone violates these terms? If they fail to comply with the initial registration, they could be fined up to $1,000 and jailed up to 90 days. For other violations, they could face up to a $5,000 fine and a year in jail. King County Animal Control has the prerogative to put the dog down.






Exchange the word "dog" with "gun" Replace "Pit Bull" with ".50 caliber assault weapon".

"It was acceptable to do with dogs, why can't we register dangerous firearms?"
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 5:53:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 5:58:52 PM EDT

• Confine the dog to an enclosure with a warning sign

• Muzzle and leash the dog when outside the enclosure

Have at least $250,000 in insurance or $250,000 in a bond payable to anyone injured by the dog

• Pay $100 per year to register the animal

• Have a microchip implanted by a veterinarian for identification

Penalties



The red line stands out above all the others, to force punishment where no crime yet exists is tyranny plain and simple.

If private property is not private then there is no law.



Link Posted: 2/22/2006 5:59:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PCR-00:
I'm uncomfortable with the direction this can lead...


Auburn’s dog rule now carries more bite

STEVE MAYNARD; The News Tribune
Published: February 22nd, 2006 02:30 AM



The Auburn City Council on Tuesday night branded pit bulls and several other breeds of dogs as potentially dangerous and required owners of those breeds to register their dogs.
Despite an outcry from about two-dozen dog owners, council members voted 7-0 to amend the city’s dangerous dog ordinance to make it breed-specific.

Councilman Bill Peloza said the ordinance revision will save human and animal lives in the long run.

“We need to protect our citizens,” Peloza said before the vote.

Auburn police have shot at attacking pit bulls five times since May, including twice so far this year.

But several dog owners said the problem was with irresponsible owners, not specific breeds.

Auburn resident Victoria Wiley, who owns a pit bull, said, “I don’t feel, as a responsible dog owner, I should be punished because other people don’t know how to handle their dogs.”

The revised ordinance will take effect in about two weeks.

Under the existing ordinance, dogs aren’t branded “potentially dangerous” until they’ve bitten once. Only if they attack a second time are they declared “dangerous” and put under strict controls.

Under the new ordinance, those restrictions will take effect after breeds tagged as potentially dangerous automatically become “dangerous” by biting once.

The city first considered tightening its rules after a pit bull killed a poodle- terrier named Fritz two years ago. The City Council proposed targeting pit bulls, then all dogs of more than 30 pounds.

But after complaints from breeders and dog owners, the council approved the less-restrictive measures in effect today.

Debbie Barrett of Auburn said Tuesday night that she fully supports the revised ordinance. She said her 170-pound Great Dane was attacked and injured by two pit bulls in August.

But Glen Bui, of the Belfair-based American Canine Foundation, said Auburn’s new dog ordinance “does nothing to target irresponsible owners.”

Bui said the new law conflicts with state law by branding certain breeds as potentially dangerous. He said his nonprofit group will sue the city of Auburn over the revision.

“We’ll see you in court,” he told the council Tuesday night.

Dog owners at Tuesday’s meeting, most of them pit bull owners, expressed frustration over the law and said they felt they were being unfairly singled out.

Julia Jones of East Pierce County, who suffers from seizures, said she needs her American pit bull terrier to protect her and pleaded with the council to do something else.

“I need her. She’s my service dog,” Jones said with her dog, Miss Bailey, at her side.

But Peloza insisted that a breed-specific law was necessary to curtail the number of dangerous dog attacks.

“One, to me, as an elected official, is one too many,” Peloza said.

Affected breeds

• Akita

• American pit bull terrier

• American Staffordshire terrier

• Bull terrier

• Cane Corso

• Dogo Argentino

• Dogue de Bordeaux

• Kuvasz

• Pit bull terrier

• Presa canario

• Tosa Inu

• Staffordshire bull terrier

Any dog with an element of those breeds or appearing to look like those breeds Dog ordinance requirements



Owners would have to register all animals belonging to these breeds, at no charge, as “potentially dangerous.” After an attack, the dogs would be declared “dangerous” and owners would have to:

• Confine the dog to an enclosure with a warning sign

• Muzzle and leash the dog when outside the enclosure

• Have at least $250,000 in insurance or $250,000 in a bond payable to anyone injured by the dog

• Pay $100 per year to register the animal

• Have a microchip implanted by a veterinarian for identification

Penalties


Wh­at if someone violates these terms? If they fail to comply with the initial registration, they could be fined up to $1,000 and jailed up to 90 days. For other violations, they could face up to a $5,000 fine and a year in jail. King County Animal Control has the prerogative to put the dog down.






Exchange the word "dog" with "gun" Replace "Pit Bull" with ".50 caliber assault weapon".

"It was acceptable to do with dogs, why can't we register dangerous firearms?"




It looks like they came from the same rule book, you just insert/change the subject/items to be band.

What about expost-facto, would it apply so you would have pre and post-ban dogs.

Rotweiler(sp) isn't on the list, unless its listed under a different name. Maybe there was a side deal like Ruger did with the Mini-14 to keep it off the list.

This stinks of lots of bad stuff, I'm glad I live in the woodz.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:05:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:

• Confine the dog to an enclosure with a warning sign

• Muzzle and leash the dog when outside the enclosure

Have at least $250,000 in insurance or $250,000 in a bond payable to anyone injured by the dog

• Pay $100 per year to register the animal

• Have a microchip implanted by a veterinarian for identification

Penalties



The red line stands out above all the others, to force punishment where no crime yet exists is tyranny plain and simple.

If private property is not private then there is no law.






This is going to bring lawsuit happy people out of the woodwork. There are people out there that would take a bite for 250k.



Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:46:24 PM EDT
This subject may or may not be worthy of discussion, but the title is a bit off. WA went beyond that road towards gun registration when they started involuntary handgun registration.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 7:22:36 PM EDT
What is the world coming to is all i can say.Our ancestors are calling us a bunch of pu!@y footing sum beeches right about now.People can sue for anything these days and will most likely win,or make up some BS law like this one.The people who created,supported and voted for this law probably lead pampered and sheltered lives.Ok i'm done ranting.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 7:34:56 PM EDT
Thats all We need... another stupid law
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:22:50 PM EDT
rrrrrrr...
I find myself constantly wishing we could go back to the simpler old days..
Your Pit Bull bites someone I know/love, I kill it and beat the shit out of you.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:43:19 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:01:36 PM EDT
Its rather amazing what happens when people are elected to positions of authority. We are a bunch of boobs who can't take care of ourselves and they must watch over us... Or so it seems.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:22:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
I forget, which Amendment covers pets?




27: Congress shall enact no law restricting the right to pet and groom fluffy. In the course of human history man was granted one certain inalienable right, the right to say "Sit Ubu Sit, good dog"


Link Posted: 2/22/2006 10:42:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
I forget, which Amendment covers pets?



Pets are property


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



They can not fine or force you to pay for something that is lawful, if they deprive you of your property {BD} they have to pay you for it and it is not market value but highest and best use, only you can set a value on your property and what it is worth to you.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."
--John Adams
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 10:46:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:37:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
So they are taking dogs?




What if someone violates these terms? If they fail to comply with the initial registration, they could be fined up to $1,000 and jailed up to 90 days. For other violations, they could face up to a $5,000 fine and a year in jail. King County Animal Control has the prerogative to put the dog down.



• Any dog with an element of those breeds or appearing to look like those breeds Dog ordinance requirements


It has eyes and teeth, it must look like a dangerous breed, remember idiots will be enforcing this law.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 12:25:44 AM EDT
Top Top