Saginaw Breed Specific Legislation

This was posted to another group that I belong to with full permission to cross post, feel free to share it. If you or someone you know lives in Saginaw and opposes BSL, you need to make your opinion known. This is the blanket response your representative is sending to anyone who opposes him. This man, and the entire city council, need to hear from Saginaw residents who oppose BSL.

Information on the proposed legislation:
http://stopbsl.com/2011/01/16/saginaw-mi-bsl-proposed-multiple-breeds/

The email from Councilman Scharffe:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dr. Bill Scharffe
Date: Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 8:19 PM
Subject: RE: "dangerous dogs" ordinance


Dear Interested Citizen:



This is in reply your email expressing your opinion regarding the pending Dangerous Dogs Ordinance that the Saginaw City Council will be considering in the near future. Due to the number of emails received, I have adopted this response to any persons who seem opposed to the ordinance.



First, if you are not actually a resident of the City of Saginaw I can assure you that your opinion will carry absolutely no weight with me as I consider my vote on the ordinance. If that is the case, you may wish to stop reading at this point and save yourself the bother of being told that your opinion, to which you are certainly entitled, is consider by me to be wrong, misguided, and selfish (meaning you care more for your “rights” to own a dangerous animal than you do for the citizens who face the real threat that your animal presents) and that your opinion does not represent a citizen of the City of Saginaw, Michigan – the only citizens that will possibly be affected by the ordinance if passed.



If you ARE a citizen of the City of Saginaw, Michigan, who opposes the ordinance, all I can tell you is that I, as a Saginaw City Councilman pledged to uphold the interests of the general population, will be voting in favor of the ordinance. Your disagreement with my position is your right. Your opposition is respected as part of the deliberative process, but will not dissuade me from promoting the ordinance. I have spent months studying the problem, reading the literature, reading the studies, researching other ordinances in other cities in Michigan and elsewhere. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence nationally as well as locally points to a definite need for the ordinance at issue.



Sincerely,



Dr. Bill Scharffe

Professional Grandfather, very UNPROFESSIONAL Golfer

(And Saginaw City Councilman)

2812 Adams Blvd.

Saginaw, MI 48602-3103

989-793-7079

I live in Saginaw and there is an actual huge problem in this city with dog fight clubs and the later release of these dogs in the streets. I worked as a teacher in Saginaw (until I was laid off) and we would volunteer our time after school, by helping prevent attacks from dogs. Kids were getting attacked daily. Plus our animal control is overwhelmed with these dogs and others. Most dogs taken to animal control are immediately put down. I do understand that responsible ownership is important and in most places people deserve the right to own these animals but in Saginaw this ordnance may help out children and dogs rights in the future. I take my dog to the dog park and for walks and kids are scared of my chocolate lab who loves kids. These children need to learn about how dogs are loving pets and not something that will attack them on there way home from school. In most cases I would be fighting along with u for the rights to own any dog but sometimes sacrafice in certain areas is needed

That's a very sad situation, but is further legislation really going to stop people who are already committing a felony? BSL only places a burden on law abiding citizens. You can pass as many new laws as you want, but as long as they're getting away with it, criminals will break those laws.

If I were a councilperson, I would want to take the money that would have been spent enacting and enforcing the new law, and put it into breaking up dog fighting rings and prosecuting the guilty parties. Passing BSL is a very public way to make it look like you're doing something, IMO.

Dangerous dogs should be so labeled based on their individual history of unprovoked human aggression, not on stereotypes and bias.

The law proposes a special permit and limits licenses to 3 dogs of any breed. U can get a permit to own the so called dangerous breeds. It helps prevent fighting dog puppy mills. But like u said it needs to be enforced to do any good.

The proposal does not allow for grandfathering in of existing dogs, so anyone with more than three dogs will probably have get rid of their pets. It also targets more than "fighting dogs", it targets "pit bulls", Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Huskies, Malamutes, Dobermans, Chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards etc. Basically, they're targeting big dogs and you can bet that if a Lab or Golden bites someone, they'll get added to the list. The proposal also does not indicate how they will determine the dog's breed. Since most dogs are either mutts or unregistered dogs, that is a legitimate concern. In addition to extra licensing, and being limited to 3 dogs, owners will be required to post signs on their property indicating that they have a dangerous dog and muzzle them in public. If leash laws were enforced, the rest of it would be a moot point, wouldn't it?

History shows that breed specific legislation does not work, furthermore, I really think that laws like this create a false sense of security. Any dog can be dangerous under certain conditions. It is the conditions that we should be fighting, not the breed and not law abiding dog owners.

There isn't even a leash law in Saginaw

Does township and state law not apply within city limits? If not, then it seems like an enforced leash law would be an excellent place to start.

Therein apparently lies the problem! Instead of starting with a normal municipal dog ordinance placing responsibility on owners, they're going to jump right to BSL? Where is the money coming to enforce this? Are they going to knock down doors of people who have more than three dogs or 'dangerous' breeds? Not only am I vehemently opposed to BSL but ownership caps as well--it's quality, not quantity.

UKC will definitely be taking opposition to this proposed legislation. For anyone interested in supporting fellow dog owners' rights and fighting the ignorance of BSL, feel free to use the UKC position statement:
http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/WebPages/ComBSLPosition

Again you need to understand the need of ordnances before you fight them. This is to help prevent dog fighting mills and to help keep dogs from being trained to be killers. It isn't stopping ownership just limiting it. I live in this town and I know that on the east side kids are being bit all the time. It isn't given big news reports when black kids are bit. This is going to also prevent euthanizing of these dogs when they are abandoned on the street. Any bully breeds found loose on the streets of Saginaw are immediately killed. If you want me to help prevent this legislation in your town i will help but not in my town. I do love u guys and your spirit though

I fail to see how it's going to prevent dog fighting or the production of fighting dogs. Dog fighting is already against city and state law. Criminals don't care about the law, they only care about getting caught. Why would they register their dogs or stop breeding them? Enforcing existing laws by going after dog fighting rings, throwing people in jail and seizing the dogs and equipment, is the best way to stop dog fighting.

I have read your city and township ordinances and the proposal (and a mountain of comments from the people of Saginaw). The township has a leash law, the city does not. The city should definitely adopt a leash law and enforce it but they don't need to jump right into the deep end of the pool with really onerous restrictions on certain breeds. Instead, they should give animal control the resources necessary to pick up loose dogs, levy steep fines on owners if they are found or put the dog up for adoption (if it is adoptable). Problem solved. People who let their dogs run loose, won't have dogs for very long. If a dog bites a human, unprovoked, the owner should have to pay a steep fine, muzzle the dog and obtain professional training or surrender the dog to animal control. This should apply to all breeds, without discrimination. Community outreach programs in schools that teach kids respect for dogs, how to deal with strange dogs and responsibility for their own pets, would also be a good investment. Targeting breeds doesn't work, it is a broad stroke that ignores dangerous dogs and punishes innocent ones. Passing new laws doesn't make up for not enforcing existing laws. I think that people with a bias against certain breeds and types of dogs and people who want to collect the revenue associated with new registration fees and fines, are taking advantage of the climate of fear in Saginaw to further their own agenda. It's going to cost taxpayers and law abiding citizens plenty of money and some heartache, but it in the end, it's not going to solve the problem.

AmphibiousAssaultDogTeam I live in Fruitport, MI which boarders Muskegon, MI. Litteraly a stone throw away. I can tell you FIRST HAND by this law passing it WILL NOT prevent anything you are concerned with. Until your city/township starts to enforce the laws it already has in place it won't make a difference. It will just make those who break the law even more of a menace and cause more problems. Muskegon Heights is one of the top places in MI known for dog fighting. The BSL in Muskegon has put no stop to this as until there are funds to enforce the laws and people who try to enforce it nothing will happen. Please do your research on what good BSL really does before jumping on the band wagon.

At this rate in MI any of us with APBT's won't be able to dock jump with all on the east side of the state due to BSL.

I would HIGHLY encourage you to get to know some good APBT owners in your area and start standing behind them. THEY are the ones who will make a difference in helping turn your community around NOT BSL.

Candi obviously you didn't read the UKC position statement, as it clearly states, and others have made the point as well, it will not fix dogfighting and bites. There ARE state laws on dogfighting that could be enforced, in fact Michigan has some of the strongest dog fighting laws in the country. THAT should be used to stop dogfighting, not BSL. You think this BSL will stop euthanasia of bully breeds? What about all the dogs that will be dumped and abandoned or even surrendered if a law like this goes into effect?

With regards to bites, even if a city or township has no real dog law in place, there is a state dangerous dog law that can be enforced. There are also dog at large laws at the state level. BSL is unnecessary and accomplishes nothing besides further costs to the city and a lot of dead dogs. Betcha would feel a lot differently if labs were on that list of dangerous breeds.

Perhaps Saginaw should take a look at Bill Bruce and his Animal Control program that should be a model for all cities. For 2009 they had a 95% rehome/adoption rate; their goal is to become no-kill. 90% of the dogs in their city are licensed. Their laws focus on OWNER RESPONSIBILITY, no ownership caps, no breeding laws, no prejudicial BSL. What he has done there is amazing and I think any city considering any kind of dog laws should have him come do a presentation first.

http://content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Hall/Business+Units/Animal+and+Bylaw+Services/Animal+and++Bylaw+Services.htm

I may just have to be come a Canadian if BSL is passed in many more cities! Geesh that is really cool. Thanks for posting that Sara!

It's not candi it was norm posting

You are correct BSL is not the fix but neither are leash laws or owner responsibility. These dogs are abandoned and are attacking people and especially kids on the street. People don't paint there names on the dogs before they are abandoned. These dogs attack and then get killed. You can't prosecute anybody like that. Except in the cases of puppies I think a good limit is three per house that way we might be able do weed out some of the dog fighters. We can't now because you can own twelve dogs on a chain. If the dogs are injured they are abandonned and they get away with it. This is a way to prevent this 12 dogs on a heavy chain is pretty obvious but not illegal. Once in a while you will get an abuse charge and a fighting breeder taken care of but not often. This won't stop all the problems but it will help. I'm not for taking peoples dogs away but I live here and I'm torn between fighting for my rights and my families safety. This isn't just an occasional problem this is serious loose dogs every week on my porch. Especially with kady in heat. And you don't have to make decision between allowing a dangerous dog go lose and killing it by calling animal control. There are volunteer no kill shelters but they won't take bully breeds or the other breed on that list. Sorry if I offended anybody but this is real life and hope to see you At Novi.




Norm