- BSL bans or restricts dogs based solely on their appearance due to the idea that these dogs are dangerous. BSL does not take into account the actions, behavior, or history of the dog, it only considers the physical appearance of the dog.
-BSL is not only unfair and unethical, it is also ineffective. BSL fails to increase public safety because it does not address the real issue of owner irresponsibility.
- Pit Bull is in fact, not a breed of dog. The term Pit Bull is associated with three breeds of dog: American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Dog Bite statistics put all three of these breeds into the same category. No other breed is subjected to this categorization.
-BSL invariably punishes responsible dog owners, as they are the ones most likely to comply with the law.
A heartbreaking example of how BSL destroys innocent lives.
- Ken Cockayne
- Derek Czencselewski
- Henri Martin
- Eric Carlson
- Ken Fuller
- Mayor's Office
- Clifford Block
- Kevin McCauley
- Art Ward
- Dave Mills
Dear Bristol City Council Members,
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.
Jessica Norton started this petition with a single signature, and now has 1,761 supporters. Start a petition today to change something you care about.