Guest Anonymous Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Let me say that this parish is backasswards and a pain in the rear! They are behind the times in many many aspects. The vet in this article is my personal vet and has been for years. He told me Tuesday night after getting off the phone with the reporter that he is very upset that the parish didn't contact him about this ban. Plaquemines officials approve a law to ban pit bulls from the parish Thursday, August 18, 2005 By Karen Turni Bazile St. Bernard/Plaquemines bureau [url]http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-4/112435035122390.xml[/url] In a move that mirrors a national trend that some animal activists find disturbing, Plaquemines Parish will try to become the first Louisiana parish to effectively ban pit bulls. Under a measure the Plaquemines Parish Council adopted unanimously last week, pit bull owners will have roughly 30 days to have microchips implanted into their dogs. The microchips can be used to identify the dogs and contain information corresponding to registration records. After the 30-day microchipping period, residents will not be allowed to bring in or breed additional pit bulls. The law is somewhat vague on breeding because it says a pit bull is not recognized under the ban until it is 6 months old. Plaquemines Parish President Benny Rousselle said he disagrees with the pit bull ban, part of a larger initiative to tighten the parish's animal control regulations, but won't veto the new law, which will take effect without his signature on Aug. 31. "I realize that there is a public fear of pit bulls, and I share that fear," Rousselle said. "But we ought to be focusing on vicious and dangerous dogs no matter what breed they are." While outright bans are still rare, a growing number of communities are pushing for stiffer controls over pit bulls and other breeds thought to be dangerous, animal control officials said. Plaquemines Parish is the first Louisiana parish to ban pit bulls. The town of Welsh near Lake Charles also has a pit bull ban in place, said Jeff Dorson, regional director for the Humane Society of Louisiana. Inspections of homes In the metro area, St. Charles Parish implemented a breed-specific law last year that requires pit bull owners to microchip their dogs and agree to a home site inspection to make sure the dogs are being properly confined, officials said. And Gretna has a law that requires that pit bulls be kept in a kennel separated from other homes or property lines. Several U.S. cities, including Denver and Toledo, Ohio, have banned pit bulls, sparking controversy and, at least in Denver's case, a petition effort aimed at overturning the ban. Proponents of such bans claim that pit bulls, bred and trained for generations for fighting, are inherently dangerous. Opponents argue that it is the dogs' handlers that make them vicious and that most pit bulls are not dangerous. While eight of the 15 dog bite cases in Plaquemines Parish this year involved pit bulls, it is not known whether the council's ban is tied to a specific incident. The legislation's author, Councilman Rick Fremin, refused to discuss it. And Council Attorney Kevin Conner, who helped write the law, could not be reached for comment. Pointing to the fact that more than half the parish's dog bite cases involved pit bulls, Dorson said Plaquemines Parish officials have the right idea. "These people are extremely lucky that the bites didn't turn into fatalities," Dorson said. Pit bulls "are genetically trained to not let go until the prey surrenders or dies as a result of the injury. They have the strongest jaw strength of any dogs." But others worry when municipalities begin targeting specific breeds. Pit bulls especially have unfairly come under fire in recent years, they say. "It's sad because they are such great dogs and people who are responsible owners are being discriminated against," said Laura Maloney of the Louisiana SPCA, a statewide nonprofit group in charge of New Orleans' animal control office. Difficult to target Meanwhile, Bert Smith, director of Jefferson Parish's Animal Control Department, said he thinks it might be difficult to target a specific breed. First, he said, it is troublesome to identify which animals are pit bulls. Second, such laws penalize good pit bulls and their owners. "For every bad dog in a breed, there is a good one that you never hear about because the owners are responsible," Smith said. Smith said the majority of Jefferson Parish's serious dog cases involve pit bulls, including a 2000 attack in which a pit bull killed a toddler. "I don't have a problem with Plaquemines doing that (banning pit bulls)," he said. "Each community has to decide, based on their resources, how they think they should deal with it." Dorson also said he hopes Plaquemines Parish's ban will take a bite out of illegal dog fighting. "We all know that it is a multimillion-dollar activity in Louisiana alone," he said. "We've heard reports of pit bull fighting in Plaquemines for years. This is an excellent way to take out this whole criminal enterprise. The downside is the good pet owners are penalized." Crystal Viator and David Thurman of Belle Chasse expect to pay $160 to have their four pit bulls microchipped. "We are going to pay for the people who do the wrong," Viator said. But, she added, "If they tell me I have to, I will (register the dogs) to keep my 10-year-old son happy" because he doesn't want to move from Belle Chasse. Thurman said they would move before they would give up the animals, ages 4 months to 5 years old. The three adult dogs sleep with Viator's son and hang around the house with the neighborhood children when they visit. "All the neighborhood kids play PlayStation with my son, and the dogs have never caused any problems with as many as five kids in the bedroom," Viator said. "None of them are scared of those dogs." Chip goes under the skin Stephen Hebert, a Belle Chasse veterinarian under contract to work with Plaquemines Parish on animal control issues, said the microchips are injected under the skin between the dog's shoulder blades. About the size of a grain of rice, the chip will last the life of the dog and will have a number that will allow the dog and its owner to be identified when it is scanned. Hebert said he will charge $40 to microchip the pit bulls, a fee that includes an inspection to certify that the dog is a pit bull. Hebert didn't say whether he supported the ban on pit bulls, but he said he believes there are many good pit bulls and pit bull owners, and he knows that the more common trend is for municipalities to require owners to register large animals who may be aggressive. He also questioned the fairness of discriminating against one breed of dog. Under Plaquemines Parish's law, which takes effect Aug. 31, pit bull owners will have until Sept. 30 to have their animals microchipped in order to be grandfathered in, and they will have to register the information with the parish animal control office by Oct. 15, Plaquemines Parish Director of Administration Gary Ragas said. "Although the administration is neutral on banning certain dog breeds, we will work hand in hand with the Parish Council to fully implement any ban on any dogs or any other animal," Ragas said. Any dogs that are not grandfathered in will be impounded or removed from the parish after the law goes into effect, Ragas said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddysMom Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 WHOA!!! Now help educate me ... I do believe "parish" is equivalent to "town" or "village" there, right??!! Of course I started thinking "congragation" as in a church membership :o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__crazy_canine__ Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 [quote]The law is somewhat vague on breeding because it says a pit bull is not recognized under the ban until it is 6 months old. [/quote] Wow, so they expect people are going to breed a dog that is UNDER 6 months old. :o Most females dont even come into heat at that age. [quote]Proponents of such bans claim that pit bulls, bred and trained for generations for fighting, are inherently dangerous. Opponents argue that it is the dogs' handlers that make them vicious and that most pit bulls are not dangerous. [/quote] Breeders specifically breed for dogs that are stable and dont bite humans. What idiots. [quote]"These people are extremely lucky that the bites didn't turn into fatalities," Dorson said. Pit bulls "are genetically trained to not let go until the prey surrenders or dies as a result of the injury. They have the strongest jaw strength of any dogs." [/quote] Yeah, but that "prey" isnt humans, its dogs or whatever the animal may be by choice of the owner. [quote]Dorson also said he hopes Plaquemines Parish's ban will take a bite out of illegal dog fighting. [/quote] Umm, okay that makes sense. People who are fighting ILLEGALLY are going to listen to a LAW that says having pit bulls unregistered and breeding them is ILLEGAL. Right... :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gooeydog Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 [quote name='__crazy_canine__'][quote]The law is somewhat vague on breeding because it says a pit bull is not recognized under the ban until it is 6 months old. [/quote] Wow, so they expect people are going to breed a dog that is UNDER 6 months old. :o Most females dont even come into heat at that age.[/quote] No. It means that people can breed all they want, so long as the pups are gone by 6 months of age. Not that it matters of course, since by then the people who buy the pups from breeders stupid enough to breed when they're banned will have likely tired of them and dumped them at the shelter anyway. [quote][quote]"These people are extremely lucky that the bites didn't turn into fatalities," Dorson said. Pit bulls "are genetically trained to not let go until the prey surrenders or dies as a result of the injury. They have the strongest jaw strength of any dogs." [/quote] Yeah, but that "prey" isnt humans, its dogs or whatever the animal [i]may be by choice of the owner[/i].[/quote] Two things here. First, your average person doesn't grasp the difference between animal aggression and human aggression. They do not look at a dog lunging at another dog and think... "gee, looks like he's a bit animal aggressive, but I'm sure he loves people :) "... they look and think, "HOLY...! What a MEAN dog!". That's just the way things are, and while you can educate, you don't have a chance of convincing everyone. Second, I don't know if you've noticed, but there are some nasty, ill tempered pit bulls out there, as evidenced by the fact that people are getting bitten. Doesn't mean the majority are like that, but people are breeding without regard for temperament, and in some cases even FOR aggressive temperament, so its bound to result in more dogs with shady temperaments. And when you get a large, powerful, aggressive dog, you have a recipe for disaster. Put it in the hands of an irresponsible owner (who may even be trying to bring out aggression) and you may as well set the timer, as it's only a matter of time before something happens. We cannot argue that no pit bull poses a threat to humans, it's been proven untrue numerous times and only makes us look like fools, so we need to address the problem in the most accurate light and get on with finding a solution. Tammy, do you have any contact info for those supporting the legislation? It seems like most there are pretty indifferent, so maybe if they can be shown how BSL will be an inneffective waste of money and resources, they can be persuaded to reconsider? I won't be around this weekend, but can do some writing when I get back, and I'm sure others here can as well if it might help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Buddysmom-Parish = County Gooey-I'll get that information for you tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 Animal Control -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Address: Phone: Office Hours: Plaquemines Parish Animal Control 3706 Main Street Belle Chasse, Louisiana70037 Plaquemines Parish Dog Pound Sewer Plant Road Belle Chasse, Louisiana70037 (504) 297-5402 (504) 394-3510 Fax: (504) 393-0437 Email: Superintendent : [email][email protected][/email] Secretary/Clerical: [email][email protected][/email] State Senator Walter J. Boasso District 1 Website [url]http://senate.legis.state.la.us/Boasso/[/url] E-mail [email][email protected][/email] Capitol Office P.O. Box 94183 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 (225) 342-2040 District Office 100 Intermodal Drive Chalmette, LA 70043 (504) 270-9258 . Representative Ernest D. Wooton District 105 Website [url]http://house.legis.state.la.us[/url] /H-Reps/members.asp?ID=105 DISTRICT OFFICE 8018 Highway 23 Suite 214 Belle Chasse, LA 70037 (504)393-5649 (504)393-5603 (Fax) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State Senator Francis C. Heitmeier District 7 Website [url]http://senate.legis.state.la.us/Heitmeier/[/url] E-mail [email][email protected][/email] Capitol Office P.O. Box 94183 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 (225) 342-2040 District Office 3709 General DeGaulle New Orleans, LA 70114 (504) 361-6014 John Barthelemy Rt. 1 Box 53A, Suite 207 Braithwaite, LA 70040 (504) 297-5560 Rick Fremin 106 Ave. G Belle Chasse, LA 70037 (504) 297-5302 Jerry Hodnett 106 Ave. G Belle Chasse, LA 70037 (504) 297-5303 Mike Mudge 106 Ave. G Belle Chasse, LA 70037 (504) 297-5304 Steve Vaughn 104 New Orleans Street Belle Chasse , LA 70037 (504) 297-5295 Amos Cormier P.O. Box 315 Port Sulphur, LA 70083 (985) 564-2131 Jay Friedman 28028 Hwy 23 Port Sulphur, LA 70083 (985) 564-9017 Lynda Banta P.O. Box 7148 Buras, LA 70041 (985) 657-8651 Joe Clark P.O. Box 570 Venice, LA 70091 (985) 534-7196 They have email links under the information problem is it takes you to an online form. The website with each person is at: [url]http://www.plaqueminesparish.com/ParishCouncil/[/url] President Benny Rousselle 106 Ave. G Belle Chasse, LA 70037 (504) 394-4080 [email][email protected][/email] Director of Administration Gary Ragas 28028 Hwy. 23 Suite 201 Port Sulphur, LA 70083 (985) 564-5712 [email][email protected][/email] Director of Public Service William Serpas 28028 Hwy. 23 Suite 114 Port Sulphur, LA 70083 (985) 564-5736 [email][email protected][/email] Director of Operations Lonnie Greco 106 Ave. G Belle Chasse, LA 70037 (504) 297-5321 [email][email protected][/email] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gooeydog Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 My email, I haven't sent it yet because I still have to dig up the references I want (those ATT:... notes), and I want to make sure it makes sense and isn't too long... thoughts? ******************************* [color=darkred]It has been brought to my attention recently that Plaquemines Parish is considering legislation to restrict specific breeds of dog, in particular, the pit bull breeds. I ask that you please reconsider the effectiveness of this type of law, as it has been proven in many cases to be a costly and ineffective means of reducing dog attacks. Breed specific legislation (BSL) has been estimated to cost upwards of $50,000 per year to enforce in mid-size cities (ATT:1- BMDarticle)-after initial costs of hiring more personnel, adding larger holding facilities, etc to deal with the intake of said dogs. Since there is no accurate means of identifying a given dog's breed, it falls upon human perception, which often varies largely. (ATT:2- PBgame)Add to this confusion the fact that there is no "pit bull" breed, but rather a group of breeds similar in appearance, and it becomes harder for even those experienced with the breeds to identify them accurately. The general public cannot accurately identify a generic "pit bull", which will lead to many false reports filed and non-pit bull dogs/dog owners being persecuted, in addition to adding workload to animal control employees already burdened with other animal related issues. Even if sufficient resources are aquired for enforcing such legislation, there is another issue (which in fact is the root of the dangerous dog problem) of irresponsible dog owners. These people, be they dog fighters, those who encourage aggressive behavior from their dogs, or just people who don't care to take responsibility for their dogs; are not likely to care about whatever legislation you effect, and will simply hide their pit bulls, not even giving second thought to your regulations. If you take their dogs, they will likely get new ones, either more pit bulls or other large, powerful breeds with which they can do the same as they are currently with their pit bulls. It has been proven time and again in other places where BSL has been passed, that it does little, if anything to control irresponsible dog owners, which are where the actual problem lies; not in dogs, or responsible, law abiding dog owners. (ATT: 3- PG report) A final point against BSL is that while it may guard against attacks by pit bulls, it does nothing to prevent attacks by other breeds (even encouraging them in some cases since irresponsible pit bull owners will likely find other breeds to exploit). Fatal dog attacks over the past 30 yrs have been attributed to over 25 different breeds and types of dogs, and an even larger number of breeds have seriously mauled people. As someone who has lost a family member to a (non-pit bull) dog related accident, overlooking this many deaths/injuries is absolutely NOT acceptable, if you want to protect people from dog attacks, protect them from all dogs, not just those most commonly reported on (ATT:4- CDC & ATT:5- other breed bites). Rather than passing ineffective legislation against specific breeds, you would have more impact on the dangerous dog problem if you were to do the following: - Ensure that you have a generic dangerous dog law in place, with responsibility placed on dog owners, and appropriate penalties for improperly keeping vicious dogs. Please see the following state law as an example of a well written dangerous dog law (ATT:6- CAlaw) - Hold dog owners who allow their dogs to harm others liable (ATT:7- SFcase) - Enact and enforce leash laws, and provide funding for low cost spay/neuter (ATT:8- Stats) - Provide/require dog safety classes for school age children (ATT:8) -Mandatory microchipping for all dogs which have bitten or been found roaming at large, so owners may be held accountable for repeated occurances. [/color] ********** notes, not sure which of these will be in here, though I think the list needs trimmed down a good bit... less potatos, more meat :help1: ATT1- article from a Baltimore paper citing costs to effect a ban at that time (2001?) ATT2- find the pit bull game ATT3- report by the PGC MD anti-BSL group, regarding how effective BSL there has been, that they're still overran by pit bulls (and now mastiffs and rotties) almost 10 yrs after it being passed, not sure if I'll be able to get this one or not ATT4- CDC report (not sure if this one's getting included, since I'm sure they'll see the breed stats and disregard all of what I've said) ATT5- photos/reports of attacks by other breeds ATT6- CA state law (pre-SB681) as an example of good dog law ATT7- SF mauling case in which dog owners were tried for murder/manslaughter ATT8- Stats regarding dog attacks, listed percentage of intact vs altered dogs, loose vs at home dogs, adults vs children, etc attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.