It was a tough night for local politicians who favored Breed Specific Legislation throughout the country yesterday.
In Whitehall, OH, Jaquelin Thompson was voted out of office on a recall vote with 75% of voters saying she should be removed from office. Thompson was responsible for not once, but twice, trying to ban pit bulls in the community of Whitehall. She was removed from office two years before her term was up. Also in Whitehall, the only other council member who voted in favor of a ban on 'pit bulls' when it came up for a vote last year, Leslie LaCorte, was also voted out of office in favor of Van Gregg. LaCorte got only 41% of the vote.
(Special thanks to my friends at Help Fido for their Twitter updates last night to keep me up to speed on the latest news in Whitehall).
Meanwhile in Sioux City, IA, incumbant Jim Rixner who supported the city's breed ban last fall was voted out of office. Even Rixner admits that the new dog ordinance most likely cost him the election:
"The vote was split because people were angry about dog ordinances and the Chamber's furious effort to make sure I didn't get re-elected," said Rixner, who was running for his second term on council.
Both he and Rappolt received endorsements from labor organizations, but Rixner said he believes a lot of people "plunked" for Rappolt "because they wanted to see the (vicious) dog ordinance changed."
Rixner supported passage of a stricter vicious dog law and endorsed the pit bull ban, defending both votes during the campaign."
These politicians have followed others around the country, in places like Kansas City, MO; Merriam, KS; Raytown, MO; Overland Park, KS; and Omaha, NE who have been voted out of office shortly after their irresponsible dog legislation was passed -- or, after they proposed a ban on particular breeds of dogs in their city and it did not pass.
People are becoming increasingly aware of the realitities of Breed Bans - -and that they are costly to cities, impossible to enforce, ineffective, and not based on rational decision-making. It ignores all science and the public positions of every single nationally-respected organization that has expertise in canine/human interactions.
And because of this, people are beginning to consistently vote politicians out of office who favor this irresponsible legislation. And I've written about it before, but I do think that BSL can serve as a pretty solid litmus test for candidates.
And hats off to the people in these communities who are taking a stand against irresponsible legislation and the politicians who support it. We can make a difference by being involved politically and getting politcians in office who are animal-friendly.
If you're not involved politically, you are no longer a victim of what politicians do to you, you're a participant.
Last fall, Sioux City hurried through a process, and ignored their local experts, and passed a new law regarding dogs in their community. Among the laws was a ban on "pit bulls", and a changed policy on how the city dealt with "dangerous" dogs -- that all dogs accused of biting would be euthanized -- with no options for transfering the dogs from the city.
The city has had it's share of problems with the laws, including getting people to sign paperwork that signed over their guilt (which is unconstitutional), the local vet community deciding not to help them with breed identification for enforcing their 'pit bull' ban, animal control targeting those who spoke out against the ordinance (another violation of the constitution), and having one of the first dogs that was declared dangerous by the city for biting someone after the ordinance was passed being alabrador belonging to a city council member who was responsible for passing the law in the first place -- a dog that was later stolen from the city shelter.
So why would I not be surprised that the city is facing even MORE problems with their ordinance.
Currently, there are six people who have filed civil suits against the city for what they say were arbitrary decisions about the dogs beign "dangerous". So while these suits tie up the court system, the dogs remain in the shelter for sim months to up to two years at a time on doggie death row waiting for the hearings to take place.
"I think the city does have to be concerned about it because animal control's having to provide shelter for these dogs and it's just something that's going to continue until there's some kind of resolution to it," said Martha McMinn, the attorney for the owners of the dogs. "Everyone agrees you shouldn't have vicious dogs out there biting people but this is so arbitrary."
Dogs affected by the new ordinance, including those confiscated due to the ban on 'pit bulls' now take up about 1/3 of the 52 kennel spaces in the Sioux City Animal Control Shelter and the shelter is struggling with overcrowding. "We're running out of room" said Cindy Rarrat, owner of the Sioux City Shelter.
Also interesting is that of the 6 dogs waiting on doggie death row, only one is actually a 'pit bull' -- with the others being a German Shepherd Mix, a Shar Pei, a Siberian Husky and a Great Dane. So why were 'pit bulls' singled out again? They make up only a small percentage of the dogs that are accused of biting.
Meanwhile, the amount of money the taxpayers are now paying for court rulings, holding the dogs, etc is mounting up tremendously.
"It's just a bad law and people are waking up to a lot of that," said Dennis Cloud, the owner of one of the dogs on death row.
I couldn't agree more.
