There are these two towns in Nebraska: Rushville and La
Vista.
Rushville, citing a rash of dog attacks, had the City Council
members vote unanimously to prohibit pit bulls inside the city limits. They “recently
passed an ordinance that bans “pit bulls.”‘
Let’s follow the logic:..”Mayor Chris Heiser said some of
the problems that prompted the ordinance originated with stray dogs that enter
the city from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Although other breeds cause
problems, pit bull attacks are often more dangerous, he said. "In 2009 we
had 10 dog bites, and of those only one was from a pit bull," Heiser said.
But he added that, due to the strength of their jaws, a pit bull attack can
cause much more harm that a bite from a Chihuahua (sic!). "We have talked
about (making an ordinance) before, and we currently have a vicious dog
ordinance. We're just trying to catch up with the times," he said.
http://tinyurl.com/7k84htj
So, to summarize… the town has a problem with stray dogs,
they had 10 dog bites in 2009, one of which was a “pit bull,” so the city makes
the decision to ban Pit Bulls. Now THAT ought to protect the citizenry.
Our colleague Jodi Preis of
Bless the Bullys fame, tells us
about another city ion Nebraska.
"The La
Vista City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved an ordinance to cope with
potentially dangerous dogs and their owners.”
“The ordinance, which
will take effect Jan. 1, gives the Nebraska Humane Society the power to declare
a dog as "potentially dangerous" if the dog is unprovoked and attacks
and injures a person or another pet.
Unprovoked dog chases,
or a tendency to attack or threaten animals or people, could also lead to the
tag of potentially dangerous.
Mark Langan, a vice
president for the Humane Society, said similar measures have been effective in
other cities. He said only about 100 dogs in Omaha have been declared
potentially dangerous since the city's ordinance took effect in 2009.
Dogs, regardless of
breed, can be classified as potentially dangerous only after an incident that
leads to the intimidation, injury or attack on another animal or human.
"It holds the
owner responsible, which I think is key to this," said Councilman Kelly Sell.”
So, dear reader, what makes sense? An ordinance that
prohibits Pit Bulls or an ordinance that holds the owners of ANY dangerous animal
responsible?
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
