Wednesday, December 21, 2011

A Tale of Two Cities

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.

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?

You tell me…

No comments: