Skip to main content

The Truth About Breed Specific Legislation

By May 16, 2016December 8th, 2016Legislation

Legislation maverick

Truth About Breed Specific Legislation Is Not Given To The General Public

As many of us realize, the general public is unaware of the truth about Breed Specific Legislation regarding bully dogs, pit bull dogs, and whatever we choose to call APBTs, Staffies, etc. Instead, when the truth is presented, even if by a court of law, the opposition seeks to immediately STIFLE such information.  As an example, the State v. Murphy case (September, 2006, Third District Appellate Court, Marion County, Ohio, Case No. 9-06-24, cited as State v. Murphy, 2006-Ohio-4549) cited and used the TELLINGS case in making its determination, and reversed the lower court’s criminal case decision; the court made it clear that just because a dog was of a particular breed, it was not necessarily indicative of a crime under the law in question.

This ruling, in citing the Tellings case, indicates Tellings has far greater impact than given credit for—the reason is because the Tellings case is under review at the Ohio Supreme Court, and cases are not often cited while they are still under appeal.  The fact that another Appellate Court in Ohio cited the case and reversed is indicative, in my opinion, that this second Appellate court was willing to cite a case still under review because the Tellings case is very strong—the written opinion was exceptionally clear.

Most judges loathe having their cases reversed. Therefore, most judges do not cite cases unless they are fairly sure of the outcome involving a case under appeal.  The Murphy case was recently posted as an FYI for bully dog owners in San Francisco, on a nationwide portal, (Craigslist), and it did not ask readers for discussion, nor did it push anti BSL.  Yet, immediately, harassing email was received, claiming that posting the case was “ABUSE” of the terms of use.  Clearly, posting such a case is not abuse.  For those not familiar with Craigslist, which is based in SAN FRANCISCO, (where the Federal lawsuit is lodged) I urge all of you to view the site and look at the pets section. As a test, a similar posting was put in New York (where BSL law is being considered for New York City) and several other cities. The postings were deleted by the community!!

You will find animal extremists galore, people who hate breeders, who hate people who offer puppies for sale, who hate people who want to breed well-tempered dogs, those who believe everyone is a backyard breeder, claiming people who want to breed animals are making money “off the backs of the animals”,  people who claim they want to save animals but put smoke bombs in people’s homes, people who want to force their ideas such as mandatory altering on everyone in the nation, and other such related goals. There are also disgruntled shelter workers who have post traumatic stress disorder from having killed too many dogs and cats in shelters, and their postings are obvious.

These are the same people that pushed SB861, and who lead the lawmakers into believing that all breeders are bad, all breeders are backyard breeders, all dogs of certain breed kill people, and basically these people carry out the directives of mandatory altering for all dogs and cats.  Which explains why the Bay Area has almost no puppies for adoption, and no smaller breed dogs in shelters or rescues—they have discouraged and demeaned dog breeding to the point that everyone has bought into the concept that mandatory spay and neuter is the way to go, and any dog obtained should be through rescue, or by adopting from a shelter.  They thus import dogs from third world countries, central California shelters, and other places—as long as it avoids “dog breeding”—then they say it’s “okay.”

An example is the SF SPCA which says it places 86% of its animals. They seldom if ever have any smaller breed dogs or pups for adoption. It used to be that owners gave up pups they couldn’t place or sell; today, those pups do not exist. How do we know this? We have worked in animal rescue for years, and at each adoption event, many of our clients are Bay Area people who tell us that there are no available small dogs or puppies in the area where they live. When such dogs are available, many adopters line up and fight to obtain the dog; in Los Angeles, a poodle was up for adoption and fetched a bid of $800.  Now you might ask, why don’t they just BUY a dog? The simple answer is, they have been indoctrinated NOT to ever buy a dog from a breeder—instead, they are led to believe that they MUST rescue a dog—it doesn’t matter WHERE it comes from.

So if a third world dog from Thailand, Russia, Beruit (Lebanon), Mexico, China, or  Puerto Rico is imported into California, they are led to believe that they should pick such an animal over a dog that is bred locally. Dog breeders should be aware that this state of affairs is not just limited to the San Francisco Bay Area, but it will prevail in any area where the animal extremists who hate dog breeding exist.  Part of the problem with BSL is that the extremists simply use BSL to gain a foothold on mandatory altering.  There is no other reason they would have an interest in promulgating BSL, as most of them couldn’t identify an APBT if their lives depended upon it, most of them have never owned such a dog, and most of them don’t actually believe pets should be “owned”; instead, they say the person should be the “guardian”, not the owner.  Believe me, I have interviewed a large number of people in person or via email, and nearly all of them think that pitbull dogs are very dangerous, all pets should be altered, and that breeding a dog is a complete sin.

If you have ever wondered why they say this, it is because it is yet another foothold they are attempting to gain, in their quest to eliminate people actually “owning” pets as property.  Despite the fact that many court cases for decades have held animals to be property, the animal extremists are slowly chipping away at that—-they want to change the role of animals into something much more than property—and that is why they have attempted to bring cases to court claiming that a pet lost (whether through negligence or otherwise) should entitle the “guardian” to many hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation.  I guess we could say they want compensation akin to cases where a family member is lost, and obviously the courts do not consider the family member to be property.