Posts Tagged ‘pitbulls’

Court Upholds Law Protecting People and Pets

While the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow will consider a landmark case on the commercial sale of videos showing illegal acts of animal torture, another decision just issued by a federal court in Louisville could also have a meaningful impact on animal protection policies nationwide. The court upheld as constitutional nearly every component of Louisville’s comprehensive animal care and control ordinance, which protects pets and their owners in the metro area.

Pitbull 
A federal court upheld Louisville’s comprehensive animal
care and control ordinance
.

The controversy began in November 2005, with two fatal attacks by pit bulls in Louisville, and city lawmakers reacted by proposing a pit bull ban. The city’s animal control ordinance was set to expire anyway, resulting from the merger of the Louisville and Jefferson County governments, so lawmakers decided to take the opportunity to address more wide-ranging problems, such as Louisville’s overpopulation of stray dogs and cats.

HSUS and other groups that oppose breed-specific legislation argued that a ban on pit bulls would be ineffective at addressing dangerous dog problems, and that other factors, such as the level of training and socialization provided by the dog’s owner, have a greater impact on aggressive behavior. To their great credit, lawmakers opted to pursue a measure that was not breed-specific but instead placed primary responsibility for a dog’s behavior on owners, and encouraged owners to consider spaying and neutering their dogs in order to decrease the likelihood of biting and aggression. 

The new law passed in 2007 not only took a proactive approach to dangerous dogs, but also strengthened other areas of the law—protecting dogs from continuous tethering, imposing certain requirements on dog owners and kennels to provide basic necessities to their dogs, disclosing information to consumers who purchase animals, and incentivizing the spaying and neutering of pets through differential licensing fees. Given that Louisville’s shelter euthanasia rate was three times the national average, something had to be done to address particularly acute and escalating animal control problems.

In their zeal to prevent any restrictions on animal use, however, the Louisville Kennel Club, local hunting organizations, and other plaintiffs filed a broad and haphazard lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of nearly two-dozen provisions of the law, including both newly enacted provisions and provisions that have existed in the Louisville animal control ordinance for years. The Kennel Club sought to invalidate the entire ordinance, which would have deprived the Louisville metro government of its ability to provide critical public safety protections for its citizens, divest the county’s animal control department of virtually every one of its functions, decriminalize acts of cruelty to animals, and put the county back on track toward becoming one of the most prolific dog and cat killing jurisdictions in the nation.

On Friday, the federal district court resoundingly rejected the Kennel Club’s challenge to the law. The court did not strike any of the language of the ordinance, and enjoined implementation of only one aspect of the law in a very narrow class of cases—the forfeiture of animals where a court has determined that there is probable cause that a violation of the law has occurred, but the owner is not able to pay a bond to cover the costs of care for the animal pending trial, and the owner is eventually acquitted of the offense. The court did not strike the bond requirement, nor the provision requiring forfeiture of animals to the metro government in certain cases after an owner is found to be in violation of the animal control ordinance.

The Kennel Club’s effort to invalidate key provisions of the ordinance was rejected over and over again in the court’s opinion. Important sections of the animal control law challenged by the Kennel Club and upheld by the court include the:

  • prohibition of cruelty to animals;
  • provisions preventing animal nuisances;
  • restrictions on tethering animals in a cruel or neglectful manner;
  • provisions concerning impoundment and license revocation;
  • restrictions on sales of dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs;
  • provisions granting animal control the authority to seize animals of owners violating the ordinance;
  • requirements for veterinarians to report public health information, such as vaccination records and animal bites, to the government; and
  • definitions of “dangerous dog,” “potentially dangerous dog,” “proper enclosures” for unaltered dogs, “nuisance,” “attack,” “restraint,” and “cruelty.”

Notably, the court also resoundingly rejected the Kennel Club’s challenges to the enforcement authority of the director of Louisville Metro Animal Services, discarding the claims of “arbitrary” and “selective” enforcement. Responding to the allegation that the director intends to conduct warrantless searches in enforcing the ordinance, the court stated that the Kennel Club and other plaintiffs “are doing battle with a bogeyman of their own conjuring.”

Other municipalities have adopted more sweeping ordinances, such as pit bull bans or mandatory spay and neuter. Louisville policymakers, after a long and unusually deliberative legislative process, adopted a comprehensive but measured approach, striking a balance between the governmental interests in public health and safety and the interests of animal owners. And the court, in upholding the core provisions of the measure, sent the message that the protection of animal welfare is an important governmental responsibility.

http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2009/10/court-upholds-law-protecting-people-and-pets.html

————————————————————————————————

I seriously doubt there is a greater opponent to the Kennel Club than myself.  The biggest problem for me with that organization is the front they put on for the public. They put out propaganda that makes people think they care about specific breeds of animals and only look out for the welfare of the dogs.

Truth is they only care about their members making the most money possible. This is a pretty bold claim you may say, but I have been in and out of this business for over 20 years now and can tell you it is a fact. These people are breeders whos primary focus is to keep the industry free of regulation.

Please stop supporting these people with your donations. When I find an organization or store in my area that belongs to Kennel Club I immediately take my business elsewhere.


Bookmark & Share

Advertisements

Serial Dogfighter may get off

A serial dog fighter is suspected of being back in business but budget cuts in Columbia County may keep him from facing justice.

When deputies got a recent 9-1-1 call about pit bulls killing a calf, a deputy investigated and found evidence of dog fighting; however, when he could not find the suspect at home, the case, like many other long-term investigations got put on hold.

While county commissioners have fined Eduardo Rebaya, who they said is back in the dog-fighting business, he has not been arrested.

Police said they couldn’t devote the resources to the investigation because they have half as many deputies as they once did.

“When we lost funding, we lost virtually every person who could go sit on a house and wait for the suspect to return,” said Columbia County Sheriff Jeff Dickerson.

Rebaya was convicted of dog fighting in California and in 2004 police raided his Vancouver home. They found dog-fighting magazines, a breaking stick used to separate dogs, and a treadmill used to train them.

Police said a deputy found the same kind of equipment on Rebaya’s Scappoose property. They also said they found drugs.

Rebaya is now on parole.

But if county commissioners expect deputies to stake out his home and wait for him to come back, they’d be wrong, said Dickerson.

“Any long-term, ongoing investigation, we are hurting,” he said. “We don’t have the capability to conduct these long-term investigations.”

Dickerson said the Rebaya case is one example of what they face everyday: a shortage of deputies to investigate crimes.

Commissioner Tony Hyde said Rebaya should be in jail. He acknowledges the Sheriff Department’s cuts but said commissioners didn’t have a choice.

“I suppose we could make sure we didn’t pave any roads or don’t provide other social services everyone expects,” he said.

In Oregon it is a felony to possess a dog with the intent to fight. It is not necessary to catch them in the act of dog fighting, just prove that there was the intent to fight.

Dickerson said he only has enough deputies to respond to emergencies and follow-up on immediate investigations. The sheriff said since the county is 650 miles wide, it can take an hour for a deputy to respond to any situation.

———————————————————————————————-

I call bull s on this. Once again its an issue of the cops enforcing the laws that profit them most upfront. I bet if they were looking for someone with a load of cash and guns or heroin they would stake that place out until they found him or his whereabouts.

So what then do all criminals move to Oregon so they wont get prosecuted? I really wanted to visit but now that I hear how soft on real crime you are I believe I go elsewhere. I think it would be proper if my readers do the same.

That bs about not having money to pave roads is ridiculous.  If there is not enough money for that the reason is real estate taxes have dropped significantly. Has nothing to do money budgeted for enforcing felony crimes of dogfighting. They want to save money they can stop enforcing bogus marijuana possession or cultivation laws. They could even legalize medical cultivation and create a surplus to wipeout the violent crimes against women  and children and pets everyday.

We have so many solutions looking us in the face, we have no excuse for failure. Can someone in Oregon pick this up and push to get this guy thrown in jail? Since he is a repeater send him away for 10 years.  Make an example of him.


Bookmark & Share

Dogfighting Documentary Part1




Bookmark & Share

Dog Fighting – 4 dogs seized in Kentucky

Just a Note here: I am a little angered thinking that these guys get off with a simple misdemeanor when they should get a second degree felony. Sounds like something we could push for.  Animal abuse should be the same crime and classification as child abuse. These are the people who go out and abuse women and kids everyday. This is a fact that cannot be overlooked.

 
Case Snapshot
Case ID: 15780
Classification: Fighting
Animal: dog (pit-bull)
More cases in Pike County, KY
More cases in KY
Login to Watch this Case
   

Dog-fighting – 4 dogs seized
Ferrells Creek, KY (US)

Incident Date: Thursday, Sep 3, 2009
County: Pike
Disposition: Alleged
Case Images: 2 files available

 

Alleged:
»
Mikey Belcher
» Todd Martin
» Crystal Potter-Martin
» Christopher K. Meade

Case Updates: 2 update(s) available

Arrests are pending and four dogs have been seized by animal control officers after investigators found a possible dogfighting operation in the Ferrells Creek area.
The dogs all have multiple bite marks and injuries, and someone had filed the back teeth of one of the dogs to make them sharper. Three of the dogs may possibly be adoptable, officials said, while one will have to be euthanized because it is too aggressive.

Hall said the investigation into the incidents is ongoing and more arrests are possible.

“There has to be some organization,” Hall said. “We want to stop this from getting more organized than it already is.”

The county attorney’s office, he said, will take the charges very seriously.

“Any time there’s a pit bull with any injury and the person doesn’t seek medical assistance, there’s going to be arrests,” Hall said. “When a pit bull’s been injured, everybody know’s what’s happened. We’re going to lock up even the people who are at the fights.”

Hall said while investigators do not know how many of these fights are going on, he is surprised they are occurring.

“I’m shocked,” he said. “I did not know this was going on.”

Pike County Humane Society President Donna Stratton said one of the adoptable dogs, named King, has been used as “bait” for the fighting dogs, and is healing from multiple injuries. Bait dogs are typically used by dogfighters to gauge another dog’s aggressiveness by allowing the bait dog to be attacked, but not fight back.

However, she said that, despite King’s history, he still craves affection from people.

King, she said, “did nothing to deserve what happened to him.”

The nature of the dogfights, she said, reveal the vicious natures of the people participating.

“If they’ll do this to an animal, what will they do to their children?” she said. “We need to put a stop to it.”

In Kentucky, possession of a fighting dog or actually fighting the dogs is a felony offense. Being a spectator at a fight is a misdemeanor.

Anyone with information on possible dog fights or breeding dogs for fighting is asked to contact the Pike County Animal Shelter at, 432-6294, or the humane society at, 432-4951.
 

 

Case Updates

One of three men wanted for allegedly being involved in a dogfighting ring in Pike County has been arrested.According to court documents, Christopher K. Meade, 18, of Abner Fork Road, Belcher, was arrested Tuesday afternoon in Pikeville by Pike County Sheriff’s Deputy Tolbert Ratliff, and was lodged in the Pike County Detention Center. Meade was charged with a felony count of first-degree cruelty to animals in connection with the investigationOfficials said the investigation which resulted in Meade’s arrest began with an e-mailed tip earlier this month.

According to the arrest warrant, on Aug. 30, Meade intentionally owned and fought a pitbull at an abandoned mine site called “Middle Field” at Ferrells Creek, then gave the dog to someone else after the fight.

Last week, animal control officers seized four dogs believed to have been used in dog fighting at Middle Field, and issued three warrants for individuals believed to be involved.

The dogs all have multiple bite marks and injuries, and someone had filed the back teeth of one of the dogs to make them sharper. Three of the dogs may possibly be adoptable, officials said, while one will have to be euthanized because it is too aggressive.

Pike County Attorney Howard Keith Hall said the investigation into the dog fights is ongoing.

“We’re gathering evidence and looking at the possibility of other cases,” he said. “We will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.”

Hall said his office will work with Pike Commonwealth’s Attorney Rick Bartley as the cases move through the system.

The charge against Meade of first-degree cruelty to animals is a class D felony, which carries a maximum prison sentence of five years. Meade was released from the Pike County Detention Center after posting bond, court documents said, and is scheduled to be arraigned on the charge Sept. 23.

Anyone with information on possible dog fights or information on individuals who may be breeding dogs for fighting is asked to contact the Pike County Animal Shelter at, 432-6294, or the humane society at, 432-4951.

 

Source: Appalacian News Express – Sep 24, 2009
Update posted on Sep 25, 2009 – 1:08AM 
Pike County Sheriff’s deputies arrested Mikey Belcher, 18, Todd Martin, 18, and Crystal Potter-Martin, 27, all of Draffin, and charged them with second-degree cruelty to animals, a misdemeanor.The three have been accused of being involved in dogfighting which officials said occurred at an abandoned mine site called “Middle Field” at Ferrells Creek.According to the arrest warrants, on Aug. 30, Belcher intentionally failed to seek veterinary attention after taking custody of a fighting pit bull.

Court documents said that, on the same day, Crystal Potter-Martin and Todd Martin were in possession of a “very aggressive fighting pit bull that had numerous fresh wounds five to seven days old.”

The dog, according to the warrants, also had multiple scar tissue wounds.

A fourth man, Christopher K. Meade, 18, of Abner Fork Road, Belcher, was arrested last week and charged with felony cruelty to animals. According to court documents in that case, Meade owned and fought a fighting pitbull on Aug. 30 and turned it over to Belcher after the dog lost a fight.

All four are scheduled to be arraigned on Sept. 23

The cases stem from an investigation launched by animal control officers after they received a tip earlier this month.

Four dogs have been seized as a result of the investigation. The dogs all have multiple bite marks and injuries, and someone filed the back teeth of one of the dogs to make them sharper, officials said.

Melvin Sayers, chief deputy with the Pike County Sheriff’s Department said the investigation into the case is ongoing.

“There still possibly could be some more people arrested,” Sayers said.

Anyone with information on possible dog fights or information on individuals who may be breeding dogs for fighting is asked to contact the Pike County Animal Shelter at, 432-6294, or the humane society at, 432-4951.

Meade is facing a class D felony, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. The others are facing a class A misdemeanor charge, which carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail.

 

Source: Appalacian News Express – Sep 16, 2009
Update posted on Sep 24, 2009 – 4:27PM 



Bookmark & Share

My comments on adopting pitbulls

I agree and feel that humane euthanasia is a much better practice than putting them in homes. Dogs that were brought up fighting will never change. They will literally try to kill a dog at the drop of a hat without any signs of provocation. I know because I adopted one 7 years ago and dont suggest it for anyone. He is very sweet with me but anything can trigger him. I have no males left alive in the home so all is good. But no kids, friends or male dogs allowed. I really thought I could help him, which I have but I cant get him past the past. Its really tough.

If you want to get your toddler a pet, let me suggest an 8 week fixed male, lab/boxer or retriever mix.

 

You know BSL is within the rights of a community. However, the dogs already in the county should be grand-fathered in and only pertain to new dogs.

I am as big a dog lover and activist as they come.

How would you like it if someone said, hey you can no longer voice opinions against your government as it is no longer supported by the 1st amendment? When you push anti-BSL you are paving the way to destruction of our 1st amendment, unalienable rights as citizens of the USA to organize, protest and or change the law.

I will never vote for BSL, but I cannot with a clear conscious promote it either.