[screamin'eagle]

Alot of memebers have stated that they are willing to help send letters and emails to fight BSL, but are not confident in their ability to communicate effectively by writing. Please post form letters, BSL fact links, and brainstorming ideas in this thread to help other members help our breed!

[screamin'eagle]

Here's letter that I sent before...

Remember, the mind likes to assume it "knows what it knows" but often its perceptions are just not accurate. Yet strong judgments are made all the time based on limited information...When we judge someone and then adopt an attitude toward them, that shuts down other possibilities and locks us away from the insight of our hearts.
-Doc Childre and Howard Martin, co-authors ofHeartMath Solution

Dear Sir or Madam,

In response to the consideration of banning the APBT and other breeds in Fayetteville, TN I ask you to consider the following. To enforce dangerous dog and leash laws in a given jurisdiction for all dogs regardless of breed is the best way to go. To discriminate against law abiding (and responsible) dog owners on the basis of the breed of dog they choose to own is wrong and unconstitutional. Furthermore, Breed SpecificLegislation only negatively affects law abiding citizens. Law enforcement can not enforce these measures on the criminals already breaking laws and causing trouble. Many cities that have passed breed specific legislation in the past have also noted the failures. Consider Denver, CO. as a case study it a jurisdiction which has banned the American Pitbull Terrier for nearly 20 years. They now receive more American Pitbull Terriers at shelters monthly after the ban than they had registered dogs in the county pre-ban. Discrimination, bias, prejudice, ignorance, and misinformation are all words that incite inflammatory responses when used as accusations. They are perceptions that many in contemporary society try to avoid being associated with, but they are unjustly plaguing responsible owners of the American Pitbull Terrier daily. As a result of bias and misinformation in reporting, ignorance by an uncaring public, the prejudice and discrimination by lawmakers the irresponsible actions of the few cause daily sufferings in the lives of many law abiding Americans nationwide. All I ask for is balance, equity, and fairness in any issues effecting American citizens. If a person makes a bad decision punish that individual accordingly, but do not allow that person’s ignorance to cloud the many positive contributions of the nostalgic American Pitbull Terrier or his responsible owners. I opened with that quote to charge you to take a look at America's Pitbull situation through an unbiased lens. Demonstrate a willingness to learn from reliable sources, and to experience both sides of the debate hands on. Only then can an intelligent, equitable, and fair decision be made regarding the future of this noble breed. Allow insight to prevail, and oppress preconceived notions in order to make the best personal decision possible. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Screamin'Eagle

"An animal's eyes have the power to speak a greatLanguage." ~ Martin Buber"

We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~ Immanual Kant

"My little dog -- a heartbeat at my feet." ~ EdithWharton

[maryellen]

Please copy and RETYPE on your own paper prior to sending, being sure to REMOVE all ( ) s and their enclosures.
(if you type this with a 10 point font it will fit on one page)

(TO:..insert name here) (address) (city, state,zip)

(FROM:..Your name) (Your address) (your city, state, zip)
Dear (insert name here):
To be useful, legislation must be effective, enforcible, economical, and reasonably fair. Recently, a bill (CITE BILL NUMBER HERE) has been placed before (RELEVANT BODY ie., city council, etc,)that would fail all of these tests. This legislation is motivated by fear and lack of relevant knowledge. .
The media and the inexperienced would have you believe that these breeds are vicious and should be prohibited. However, these very breeds as a whole have proven their stability and good canine citizenry by becoming 'Search & Rescue dogs, Therapy dogs working inside hospitals, professional Herding dogs and family companions for years.
Our Country was not founded on the restriction and punishment of the masses based on the actions of a few....when has this changed?
A five year study published in the Cincinnati Law Review in 1982, vol. 53, pg 1077, which specifically considered both Rottweilers and "pit bulls", concluded in part that:
..statistics did not support the assertion that any one breed was dangerous, ..when legislation is focused on the type of dog it fails, because it is ... unenforceable, confusing, and costly. .. focusing legislation on dogs that are "vicious" distracts attention from the real problem, which is irresponsible owners.
In light of this and other studies, we urge you to take the following actions:
1. Reject the current legislation, which is contrary to fact and distracts from the real issue, that of responsible ownership.
2. Actively pursue legislation that would render owners liable for the actions of their pets, such as a good non-breed specific dangerous dog law.
We suggest that the appropriate policy should be "blame the owner, not the dog." Owners can and should take responsibility for their pets.
Bottom line: the legislation proposed will not only be unfair for responsible citizens but it addresses the wrong problem. Voting for this proposal as it stands only harms the law abiding responsible dog owner.

YOUR NAME

[maryellen]

Please copy and RETYPE on your own paper prior to sending, being sure to REMOVE all ( ) s and their enclosures.


Dear Sirs,
I understand your concern and desire to protect your constituents from the awful tragedy a dangerous dog can cause. You, I am sure, intend to do so with the law you are (INSERT drafting/proposing/enforcing). However, all you will do with such a law is turn thousands of pet loving voters against you personally and you will be viewed as those terrible people who will cruelly deprive animal lovers of their well behaved pets.
I am sure this is not your intention. To avoid making such a terrible mistake in your proposed legislation I suggest you contact the American Kennel Club in New York and ask for their draft version of a dangerous dog law. This law has been enacted in several states and provides the general populace ample protection from dangerous dogs while still permitting the people who properly train and socialize their pets to retain them.
The loss of a child is a terrible thing but many people will claim the loss of a beloved pet is very close emotionally to it. Banning or restricting a specific breed will not keep children or adults from being injured by dogs that have not been properly trained it will merely change the type of dog that is kept by those who desire the protection of a guardian breed. As it is the owners who control the training and socialization of the puppies they purchase or adopt they are the ones responsible for those dogs that learn to bite people.
Neither (INSERT breed/s here) are dangerous dogs per se rather they are breeds that are popular not only with those devoted to them and their proper care but those who wish a macho image. Prior to this decade other dog breeds were in similar situations for example Dobermans, German Shepherds and ChowChows, all breeds that were victims of great popluarity and subsequent poor handling by less than competent owners bringing them an undeserved reputation as a 'dangerous' breed. Banning (INSERT breed/s here) will merely hasten the upswing in popularity of some other breed.
Controlling the people who will abuse the owner dog relationship through ignorance or otherwise is a far better and wiser solution to the problem these owners present to their neighbors no matter what breed of dog they own. Respectfully,

[maryellen]

Please copy and RETYPE on your own paper prior to sending, being sure to REMOVE all ( ) s and their enclosures.

Dear Sirs:
This is in response to the pending legislation in your jurisdiction as to regulating vicious/potentially dangerous dogs via breed specific legislation.
All dogs are dangerous under certain circumstances. Only when the owner or custodian of the animal does not properly train and confine his/her animal, does that animal pose a potential risk to human safety. A common ingredient to the dog personality is to guard and protect it's owner and property. ANY dog with that personality can become a problem for the public, if that dog is allowed to run loose and is not responsibly supervised. The key word here is responsibility (per Websters, definition of responsibility: Being legally or ethically accountable for the welfare or care of another.) To say certain breeds of dogs are dangerous is not a complete statement. All dogs can be dangerous if in the hands of an irresponsible owner.
Please retract your breed specific bill/ordinance. Don't punish all of us responsible owners that maintain our dogs as companions and members of our families. We can and do maintain our dogs so they do not pose a threat to anyone, why should we be denied our companions simply because irresponsible owners of the same breed of dog have not "ethically and legally" protected others from injury?
There are several samples of existing non-breed specific legislation (ie., the State of California) that is competent to regulate the irresponsible owners and not punish those that maintain their dogs safely and humanely. I, as a responsible dog owner, ask that you seriously consider the impact of breed specific legislation. The irresponsible owners don't care what breed of dog they lose the right to own....they'll find another dog breed to fit their needs. I deeply care, because it threatens me with the loss of a family member. Sincerely,

[maryellen]

Please copy and RETYPE on your own paper prior to sending, being sure to REMOVE all ( ) s and their enclosures.
(if you type this with a 10 point font it will fit on one page)
(TO:..insert name here) (address) (city, state,zip)
(from:..Your name) (Your address) (your city, state, zip) Dear (insert name here):
To be useful, legislation must be effective, enforcible, economical, and reasonably fair. Recently, a bill (CITE BILL NUMBER HERE) has been placed before (RELEVANT BODY ie., city council, etc,) that fails all of these tests. This legislation is motivated by fear and lack of relevant knowledge. It is discriminatory, impractical, and unenforcable. Worst of all, it will not solve the problem. I urge you to vote against it.
The proposed bill would restrict the ownership of certain types of dogs, specifically (INSERT beed/s here). These breeds have been the subject of irresponsponsible and sensationalist reporting across the country. The media and the inexperienced would have you believe that these breeds are vicious and should be prohibited.
The plain fact is that there is no relationship between the type of the dog and the number of incidents. If your town has 100 German Shepherds and 1 Poodle, you'll soon learn that the German Shepherds are responsible for 100 times as many incidents as the Poodles. Does this mean that German Shepherds are intrinsically vicious? Of course not.
Taken as a whole, the (INSERT breed/s here) breeds have proven their stability and good canine citizenry by becoming 'Search & Rescue dogs, Therapy dogs working inside hospitals, professional Herding dogs and family companions for years.

A five year study published in the Cincinnati Law Review in 1982, vol. 53, pg 1077, which specifically considered both Rottweilers and "pit bulls," concluded in part that: - statistics do not support the assertion that any one breed was dangerous, - when legislation is focused on the type of dog it fails, because it is ... unenforceable, confusing, and costly. - focusing legislation on dogs that are "vicious" distracts attention from the real problem, which is irresponsible owners.

In light of the studies, the facts, and the discriminatory nature of the proposed legislation, we urge you to take the following actions:
1. Reject the current legislation, which is contrary to fact and distracts from the real issue: responsible ownership.
2. Work to establish reasonable guidelines for responsible pet ownership, and encourage legislation that supports owner responsibility without reference to specific breeds.
Study after study shows that ANY dog, regardless of breed, will be whatever its owner makes of it....nothing more, nothing less. Owners can and should take responsibility for their pets. We suggest that the appropriate policy is "blame the owner, not the dog." If a dog atacks a person, the law should treat it as though the owner attacked that person.
Voting for this proposal as it stands will harm both the law abiding, responsible dog owners and the victims, but it won't solve anything.
YOUR NAME

[RottNPitLvr]

It would be easier just to go here, http://www.paws4laws.com/default.aspx , as everything is already ready for you to write and do through the website. All the proposed bans all in one central location, and just click TAKE ACTION NOW and go from there. Very self explanatory and will help greatly in the cause to stop BSL.

[rosksel]

To me there is only way this EVIL and HEINOUS
Law is going to go away is a Deputation to the
new President-elect and pleading for assistance.
To carry on writing to these chicken hearted mayors
who just pass it on to their Animal-control officers who
now see themselves as 007's with licences to kill.These Guys
are not the least bit interested in FACTS or STATISTICS.
Most Municapilities are failing dismally on most
real Issues so to show they are fighting CRIME they
go after the LAW-ABIDING,it is much easier to have a few successes.
The other day a mayor of a small town,the town in
its history has never had a DOG-ATTACK,this IMBECILE
made a statement" I will bring in BSL just in case"
As long as Neo-Nazis like Bryant and Nelson are
around and are buying judges etc. You probably
saw the judgements in Aurora and Onscario,this
battle can not be won in a legimitate court as it
appears the corruption of these court officials
are so corrupt and crooked resembling kangaroo
courts,the choices are limited and I reckon the
only way to beat it is somehow someway bringing
President Obama to the party.
Hitler is alive and well and living in the USA with his
holiday home in Canada.
Your views would be interesting.

.
(if you type this with a 10 point font it will fit on one page)
(TO:..insert name here) (address) (city, state,zip)
(from:..Your name) (Your address) (your city, state, zip) Dear (insert name here):
To be useful, legislation must be effective, enforcible, economical, and reasonably fair. Recently, a bill (CITE BILL NUMBER HERE) has been placed before (RELEVANT BODY ie., city council, etc,) that fails all of these tests. This legislation is motivated by fear and lack of relevant knowledge. It is discriminatory, impractical, and unenforcable. Worst of all, it will not solve the problem. I urge you to vote against it.
The proposed bill would restrict the ownership of certain types of dogs, specifically (INSERT beed/s here). These breeds have been the subject of irresponsponsible and sensationalist reporting across the country. The media and the inexperienced would have you believe that these breeds are vicious and should be prohibited.
The plain fact is that there is no relationship between the type of the dog and the number of incidents. If your town has 100 German Shepherds and 1 Poodle, you'll soon learn that the German Shepherds are responsible for 100 times as many incidents as the Poodles. Does this mean that German Shepherds are intrinsically vicious? Of course not.
Taken as a whole, the (INSERT breed/s here) breeds have proven their stability and good canine citizenry by becoming 'Search & Rescue dogs, Therapy dogs working inside hospitals, professional Herding dogs and family companions for years.

A five year study published in the Cincinnati Law Review in 1982, vol. 53, pg 1077, which specifically considered both Rottweilers and "pit bulls," concluded in part that: - statistics do not support the assertion that any one breed was dangerous, - when legislation is focused on the type of dog it fails, because it is ... unenforceable, confusing, and costly. - focusing legislation on dogs that are "vicious" distracts attention from the real problem, which is irresponsible owners.

In light of the studies, the facts, and the discriminatory nature of the proposed legislation, we urge you to take the following actions:
1. Reject the current legislation, which is contrary to fact and distracts from the real issue: responsible ownership.
2. Work to establish reasonable guidelines for responsible pet ownership, and encourage legislation that supports owner responsibility without reference to specific breeds.
Study after study shows that ANY dog, regardless of breed, will be whatever its owner makes of it....nothing more, nothing less. Owners can and should take responsibility for their pets. We suggest that the appropriate policy is "blame the owner, not the dog." If a dog atacks a person, the law should treat it as though the owner attacked that person.
Voting for this proposal as it stands will harm both the law abiding, responsible dog owners and the victims, but it won't solve anything.
YOUR NAME[/quote]