I missed this on the news a few weeks ago, but it didn't take long for my email, FB page, and phone to start blowing up. After watching it I really had no words. For those of you who know me, a loss of words is rare and when it happens you can bet that the next thing that will happen is Misti Fry will be peeling me off of the ceiling. So here you go...
First, I want you to watch the video... After... Well... you'll see I got my speech back...
Take a deep breath and count to ten!
So, what is the new proposed Missouri law about? As Representative Ron Hicks said, "It's not about eliminating laws, its about creating an equal playing field". A law that prevents breed-specific legislation doesn't take away the safety of the people. It makes it so any person with any breed of potentially dangerous and/or dangerous dog will be held accountable. In turn, that makes people safer from any dangerous dog. Dogs will not be punished due to the breed; people will be held accountable for being irresponsible and dogs will be held accountable due to the situation and their temperament.
Assistant Director of Health, Clay Goddard said, "the bite is more serious with a Pit Bull than a nip from a smaller breed of dog". My simple response to that?... A bite from any dog is more serious than a nip from any dog! (Hehe)
As I have explained in past entries, a dog's bite can be more severe for a few reasons...
1)The size of the dogs head; The bigger the head, the stronger the jaw strength.
2)The size of the human and placement of the bite; same size dog bite on a child's face and a man's calf...different levels of damage.
3)The gameness of the dog; If it doesn't have a "shut off" there is more of a chance of fatal damage.
Animal Control Supervisor Randy Barnts' comment made me laugh. "Most people don't want to live next door to a pit bull". Really!? What facts are the basis for that "opinion"?
*Just a note*
How ethical is it to put a person, that doesn't like a certain breed of dog, in charge of supervising Animal Control? How do we know he treats them humanely? We wouldn't have someone who hates little boys work at a daycare would we? Maybe we should ask the ASPCA or the HSUS how ethical this is? Or maybe we should ask our Mayor?
Clay Goddard also stated that bites from pits and pit mixes are down such high percentages. I give that two reasons...
1)When you kill 1500 of anything, you are bound to have a decline in any behavior from them, positive or negative.
2) Public Awareness- When you plaster scary stuff for both sides of the BSL, all over the news, people notice and either hide their dogs or become more afraid of the Pit Bulls in the city.
In closing, if Clay Goddard says "the legislation has done what was intended", why not move forward? If statistics show BSL costs more money than it makes, why not try something that could make the city money to build that new shelter? Why are we not holding people more accountable for their actions? Why are dogs being punished because of neglect caused by a human and the human gets a pardon?
I wholeheartedly agree with the news anchor that said a Pit Bull is a beautiful thing to look at as long as you use it to its advantages. I would just change a few words...
A dog is a beautiful thing as long as you use it's strengths and weaknesses in a positive way.
Please support Missouri House bill 1116 also known as Winston's Law:
Send emails stating your "public opinion and expertise" to your Springfield city officials:
***Remember how much I stressed, in my past blogs, how we went wrong six years ago?
Let's be professional.
Mayor Bob Stephens- firstname.lastname@example.org
Springfield City Council contact info-
Director of Health, Kevin Gipsonemail@example.com
Assistant Director of Health, Clay Goddard- firstname.lastname@example.org
Animal Control Supervisor, Randy Barntsemail@example.com