[Zoe]

*CROSSPOSTED FROM ADBA MYSPACE PAGE*


Lynn City officials are discussing APBT restrictions and or bans. These politicians need to hear from their constituents.


Please be courteous. Contact these officials regarding the across the board liability that ALL dog owners should have and not owners of specific breeds. Enforce the leash/containment laws and go after the irresponsible owners.

Lynn - City Council President Timothy Phelan has resurrected the debate on a possible pit bull ban in Lynn. Phelan said he met with City Solicitor Michael Barry and Animal Control Officer Kevin Farnsworth and plans to meet with members of the police and the City Council next week to strategize ways to either ban the particular breed, or enforce stricter muzzle laws for safety measures. He is looking to pursue ways to increase fines, change ordinances and also attempt to ban “pit bulls” from the city.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________
TELL EVERYONE ABOUT THIS BSL ALERT!!

The city has announced a plan to introduce an ordinance to eventually BAN OR RESTRICT YOUR APBT!! What you read about the APBT genocide in Denver Colorado, and Kansas City Kansas, could be at your front door!

The time to stop this legislation is now, before it passes!


Please write or call the following Mayor and Council members as it is THEY who will vote on any proposal.









LYNN CITY HALL
3 CITY HALL SQUARE
LYNN, MA 01901
781-598-4000

MAYOR EDWARD J. “CHIP” CLANCY, Jr

Councilors-At-Large
Paul T. Crowley
Loretta Cuffe-O’Donnell
Charles T. O’Brien
John Timothy Phelan- President

Ward Councilors
Wayne A. Lozzi (Ward 1)
William R. Trahant, Jr. (Ward 2)
Darren P. Cyr (Ward 3)
Richard C. Colucci (Ward 4)
Paula M. Mackin (Ward 5)
Peter L. Capano (Ward 6)
Richard J. Ford- Vice President (Ward 7)

*All e-mail correspondence please forward to tyoung@ci.lynn.ma.us



CALL, AND WRITE NOT JUST ONCE BUT MANY TIMES!! THIS IS IMPORTANT!! IT HAS WORKED VERY WELL IN MANY AREAS!

Please make the call’s and send letters and be polite. We need to let them know how strongly we oppose this ordinance.

The ADBA, AKC and UKC believes that strong enforcement of leash laws, as well as clear guidelines for identifying and managing dangerous dogs, will promote responsible dog ownership and prevent tragedies from occurring. Simply placing restrictions on certain breeds will not improve public safety - it will only punish responsible dog owners.
We strongly support sound, enforceable, non-discriminatory legislation to govern dog ownership, and we appreciate legislators' desire to keep communities safe for both people and dogs. However, BSL will not address the root cause of dangerous dogs – irresponsible ownership!

Points to Address:
• BSL is inflammatory, and is based upon unproven beliefs, not facts.
• BSL is under inclusive in that it only recognizes a threat to society from certain breeds, or mixed breeds of dogs.
• BSL is over inclusive, as dogs are as varied within their breed, as are human beings within our ethnicity.
• BSL by stipulating, and naming specific breeds as being dangerous indemnifies all of the unnamed breeds as being safe by exclusion.
• BSL creates a false sense of public safety.
• BSL does not address the irresponsible dog owner.
• BSL punishes the law abiding dog owner.
• BSL orders the death of dogs based solely upon their physical appearance.
• BSL assumes that human beings are inferior to, and incapable of properly maintaining dogs of specific breeds, or appearance.
 Breed-specific legislation is opposed by the AKC,UKC, ADBA, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Animal Control Association, the ASPCA, and a host of national animal welfare organizations that have studied the issue and recognize that targeting breeds simply does not work.

BSL CASE LAW
• BSL has been ruled unconstitutional in Court venues across the United States on grounds ranging from vagueness, to an infringement of property rights, to equal treatment, equal protection.
• Dogs have been the domesticated traditional property of human beings for well over thirty-five thousand years. This tradition gives legal standing to dog owners based upon the IX Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States of America.
• BSL violates the rights granted under the IV Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
• BSL violates the rights granted under the V Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
• BSL violates the rights granted under VI Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
• BSL violates the rights granted under VIII Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
• BSL violates the rights granted under XIV Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
• BSL creates a whole new criminal class, the dog owner
• BSL sets a legal precedent that unchallenged empowers the enacting body to add any, or all other dog breeds, or even domestic species of animals to the prohibition on ownership.

Zuniga v. San Mateo Dept. of Health Services (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 1521, 267 Cal. Rptr. 2d 755. The court found there was not sufficient evidence to prove Pit Bulls have an inherent nature of being dangerous.
Carter v. Metro North Assocs. (1998) 255 A.D. 2d 251; 680 N.Y.S.2d 299 A New York appellate court determined that the alleged propensities of Pit Bull Terriers to behave more viciously than other breeds had not been authoritatively established.
American Canine Foundation litigated the city of Huntsville Alabama in 2002 in a case that was heard by the Alabama Supreme Court. Huntsville v. Shelia Tact, et al.
(Ala. 08-30-02), No.1010459, unreported. The court affirmed a trial court decision that American Pit Bull Terriers were not dangerous.
On July 16th 2003 ACF brought forth a constitutional challenge against Ohio's state law O.R.C. 955:11 that declares the Pit Bull vicious. The case was heard in the Toledo Municipal Court. The court found the American Pit Bull Terrier was not dangerous, and granted Pit Bull owners due process. Tellings v State of Ohio CRB02-15267
In August 2004 a case American Canine Foundation assisted in was heard by the Ohio Supreme Court. State v. Cowan 103 Ohio St. 3d 144 , 2004 - Ohio - 4777 The court found ORC 955:22 volatile of the right to be heard as applied to ORC955:11 which declared a specific breed of dog vicious in Ohio. The decision struck down Ohio's breed specific legislation at the state level. Ohio was the only state to have this type of legislation at the state level.
RULE OF REASON
• Laws must be reasonable.
• It is not reasonable to write animal behaviors, legal punishments, and criminal labels for animals into statutes that are enacted to structure human society.
• Animals must not be criminalized under laws that are intended to protect human rights, and to control human behaviors.
• It is unreasonable to write animal behavior into laws that no animal has the capacity to understand, answer to, or to function under.
• It is unreasonable to mete out criminal labels to animals, i.e. dangerous, or potentially dangerous. It is unreasonable to proscribe punishments to animals under our laws.
• It is unreasonable to remove the human owner from blame, or culpability for the actions of his/her animal(s).
• It is unreasonable to assume that every dog of a given breed, or physical appearance will behave in exactly the same manner.
• It is unreasonable to assume that every owner of every dog of a given breed, or physical appearance is irresponsible, negligent, or careless with their animal(s).
• Human error, carelessness, or negligence is the underlying factor behind every dog attack.
• Given the actual figures of severe dog attacks, or fatalities related to dog attacks per capita in the United States of America, dogs are not the threat to human life that the sensationalistic media, and urban myth would portray.

There exists at this time no scientific proof that a breed of dog is dangerous. Conclusions based on accurate fatal dog attacks combined with dog bite incident reports prove a dogs breed is not a factor in aggressive behavior. Breed bans do nothing to stop dog attacks, they do nothing to stop illegal activity, they do nothing to protect the public from irresponsible dog owners and punish responsible dog owners, causing court litigation, wasted tax money and impoundment of innocent dogs while criminalizing U.S. Citizens.

Problems stem from inadequate budget or man power to enforce the laws, inadequate training to effectively deal with the problem dogs in a humane way, and low priority of animal control issues. Poor community education of existing animal control laws and lack of judicial support in upholding effective penalties also create serious problems. Strong laws that penalize the owners, regardless of the breed are what is needed. These types of laws are valid, have merit, are not vague or capricious. We ALL support laws that hold owners accountable for their dog’s behavior.

Non-breed specific laws are valid under the Constitution, and are for the protection of the public welfare and safety with the degree of precision that characterizes effective legislation.
BSL and the Cost to Taxpayers

1. Cost of additional animal control officers to enforce the ban or restrictions. **Remember, most cities do not have sufficient animal control departments to enforce leash laws, which if enforced would reduce many of the problems that lead to bite incidents.

2. Kenneling.

3. Veterinary care of the animals. (Hope you don't think the animals are confiscated and immediately euthanized).

4. Legal fees, court costs, etc., associated with responsible owners lawsuits against ineffective and unconstitutional laws.

5. Baltimore, Maryland estimated (in 2001) that it cost over $750,000 a year to enforce their breed specific legislation, and they were still unable to enforce the law effectively.

6. Prince George County, Maryland reviewed their existing dangerous dog laws, including a ban on pit bulls. The task force recommended repealing the law and sited these cost factors:

(a) Loss of revenue - since the ban has been in effect, there has been a dramatic reduction in dog show/exhibits in the county. Along with this comes some indirect loss of revenue such as hotel/motels, restaurants, gas stations, veterinarians, pet supply stores, grocery and drug stores, etc.

(b) Director of Animal Management Division estimated the County's cost for maintaining a single pit bull throughout the entire process for one (1) year was $68,000.

(c) Fees from pit bull registration in 2001-2002 generated approximately $35,000 over the two (2) year period. However, the cost to the Animal Management Division for maintenance of pit bulls over the same period was $560,000. In addition, these figures would be higher but did not take into consideration utilities, manpower and overtime.

(d) It should be noted that these average costs to Prince George County do not include the expenditures of the of the County or Municipal police departments. These cross-agency costs, while significant, could not be fully captured or adequately estimated.

Source: Prince George County Task Force Report

Communities that have repealed pit bulls bans because they were found to be (1) too costly; (2) difficult to enforce and (3) ineffective:


Belton, Missouri
Bourbonnais, Illinois
Detroit, Michigan
East Point, Michigan
Redford, Michigan
Beloit, Kansas
Alguna, Washington
Hudsonville, Michigan
Baltimore, Maryland
Saginaw, Michigan


Any dog, regardless of breed, is only as dangerous as his/her owner allows it to be.

Also, if you are not registered to vote, GET REGISTERED! Your local government officials have more effect on your day to day life, then any other government body.

Back those who listen and back you! ..As for the others, VOTE THEM OUT!
__________________________________________________ ___________________________
If you choose to remain uninvolved, do not be amazed when you no longer have any property rights! Your rights, taken away while you are peacefully staying out of the "fray".
If they can do this to your dog, is anything you have out of their reach? Check history, it is full of nations/empires that disappeared when its citizens no longer held their core beliefs and values.
One person CAN make a difference. One plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one.........
__________________________________________________ ___________________________

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ Due to the time sensitive nature of some of these alerts, if you have an email address and would like us to alert you to any adverse canine/animal laws that may affect you; please email us at adam@adba.cc and we will list your email address in our files.
**BE SURE TO KEEP YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS UPDATED FOR THE LATEST INFORMATION ON ANY ALERTS!**

It is URGENT to get ALL dog owners involved in stopping adverse, unfair and restrictive laws that are being passed at an alarming rate. Spread the word and have anyone you know send in their emails to the ADBA so we can keep them informed and help them to respond.