Guest Anonymous Posted August 16, 2003 Posted August 16, 2003 Furry Friends Foundation - A no kill animal shelter http://furryfriendsfoundation.com/Truth03/SupremeCourtRuling.htm Good News from Ala. Supreme Court........... BREED SPECIFIC Legislation (BSL) was dealt a savage blow last week in an historic victory for American campaigners when the Supreme Court in Alabama ruled that there was no genetic evidence that one breed of dog was more dangerous than another, simply because of its breed. Around the world, anti-BSL campaigners are rejoicing at the ruling that drew on evidence provided by genuine canine experts, which was favoured by the judges over subjective evidence, put forward by veterinarians and politicians. The court ruling and the evidence used may now be legitimately used to fight BSL in other countries such as Germany and Australia, as well as other US States. In the UK, the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act could possibly be open to a direct egal challenge in the same way. The action in Alabama was brought by the Washington Animal Foundation (WAF) against the city of Huntsville, which had claimed that American Pit BullTerriers were genetically dangerous. The case centered on four pit bulls held in an animal shelter and adopted by three local women. The dogs were survivors of a group of over 50 pit bulls seized in a raid on a dog-fighting ring in April 2000. Half of the dogs died from injuries or disease, whilst the remainder including four puppies - were held at the City pound and put up for adoption. Sheila Tack, an emergency room nurse at Crestwood Hospital, adopted two of the puppies that she named Justice and Elizabeth. Whilst they remained impounded, she visited them twice a week. The other puppies, David and Nellie, were adopted by Kay Nagel, a military officers wife and resident of Redstone Arsenal, and Loyce Fisher, a civil service worker from Cullman. However, the City Council refused to release the dogs, stating that they were a potential danger to human beings, although none had apparently displayed any aggression. The matter was referred to court for a legal decision on the dogs' fate. During a hearing last year, lawyers representing the city, Michael Fees and Greg Burgess, told Madison County Circuit Judge Joe Battle the animals were vicious and should not be re-homed. The women, who did not have a lawyer, argued the animals were never trained to fight and conditioning can suppress any vicious tendencies the dogs might have. Judge Battle agreed and on Nov 13 2001, declared the four young pit bulls were not dangerous because they were never trained to fight. The court allowed the city to destroy 21 adult pit bulls which had been used for fighting. However, the City appealed Battle's ruling to the Alabama Supreme Court and asked the court for an order preventing the women from taking custody of the dogs. At this point, Seattle-based WAF became involved in the case and appointed Huntsville lawyer Mike Seibert to fight their case, based on evidence they gathered to counter the City lawyers claims that all Pit Bulls were genetically dangerous. The foundation hired veterinarian Dr. Alan Jones of Hazel Green to examine the dogs. But the officers at the shelter do not allow anyone to have physical contact with the pit bulls, even vet Jones. "They looked fat and happy," he said. "They seemed starved for attention and not aggressive at all" Glen Bui, spokesman for WAF told a local newspaper that the dogs should be released. "I believe that the City of Huntsville is wasting thousands of taxpayers' dollars attempting to destroy innocent dogs that were already given by the circuit court to the three women,' he said. WAF filed an Amicus (third party) submitting genetic proof that Pit Bulls are not dangerous. The city of Huntsville were backed by the extremist animal rights organization PETA that Pit Bulls were genetically dangerous, with evidence provided by veterinarians, none of whom was an expert in any specific canine or genetic field. WAF cited case laws under Due Process of the law, and stated that it was unconstitutional to rule a specific breed of dog as dangerous in this way. They also claimed it was genocide to try to eradicate the pit bull breed. WAF submitted evidence to the Supreme Court that they were able to provide: 1. Identification of expert treatises regarding the genetics of the breed in question 2. Testing and studies regarding genetics verses environment as the catalyst for a specific dog breed's aggression 3. Social contributions made by the American Pit Bull Terrier (i.e. as Assistance Dogs, Search and Rescue Dogs etc.) 4. The associations brief assisted the court as it had substantial knowledge concerning the issue before the court 5.The briefs filed by the City were insufficient to adequately address the far reaching issues involving genetic breed bias 6. The Foundation read all briefs and believed that innocent pet owners and innocent pets were not represented by either brief. WAF co-founder Glen Bui told OUR DOGS this week: "The court granted WAF's petition and allowed us seven days to file amicus curiae (disinterested adviser). Myself along with Attorney Mike Seibert worked on the amicus long hours into the night, while WAF members Kay Nagel and Sheila Tack proofread and added input. It was finished with less than one hour before the deadline to file and Sheila raced to the US post office and sent it certified mail. "Huntsville's entire case rested on affidavits from veterinarians claiming they examined the four pit bull pups and that they would pose a danger to the community because pit bulls are genetically dangerous. They also claimed the women had no legal right to adopt the pups, this was also addressed in the amicus brief." On Friday, August 30, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in WAFs favour and ordered that the dogs should be released for adoption, accepting the evidence but forward by WAF that no breed of dog is genetically dangerous. "This is fantastic news," said Bui. "The city could appeal against the ruling, but Id like to think theyll give way and release the dogs to their new owners so that they can enjoy a good life. Two of them will be trained as Search and Rescue Dogs; the other two will become pets. The pit bulls have been evaluated and temperament tested before they are released, they are being spayed and neutered. The city did tell the media that the dogs would be released, so lets hope they keep their word." Bui also told OUR DOGS this week: "For years the American Pit Bull Terrier has been alleged to be dangerous because of its genetics. Never has WAF found any genetic research proving that. When we were asked by three Huntsville women for help, they told us nobody else would help them, they had contacted everyone who fights BSL. We knew the women had to face the Supreme Court and this was a very serious case. We knew we had the genetic proof that no breed of dog is dangerous. "We knew we also had statistics which proved the APBT has one of the best temperaments out of 185 dog breeds along with a strong legal defence. Being aware that never in the past had anyone ever argued the point, after contemplating the outcome if the women lost, I decided to bring WAF into the case, on the last day before the deadline for filing briefs in the Supreme Court WAF petitioned for Amicus Curiae. "This case set a standard for future cases concerning BSL and genetics. We put several years of research into genetics and due process. We will use the statistics in Ohio; we have received assistance from state agencies in Ohio to investigate the Lucas County Dog Warden rulings on BSL in that State, as Ohio is totally BSL-controlled. Dog owners in Ohio really could use support right now. "It was a long battle and now we have proved the American Pit Bull terrier is not genetically dangerous." Quote
abker17 Posted August 16, 2003 Posted August 16, 2003 YAY! :BIG: Isn't this what we've been saying all along? Geez, it took them long enough to figure it out...... :roll: :roll: :roll: :D :D :D Quote
Guest Anonymous Posted August 17, 2003 Posted August 17, 2003 Now that is good news!! Good post and I am glad that they are finally making some headway into anti-BSL Quote
Aroura Posted August 17, 2003 Posted August 17, 2003 The Big Guest napisał(a):Around the world, anti-BSL campaigners are rejoicing at the ruling that drew on evidence provided by genuine canine experts, which was favoured by the judges over subjective evidence, put forward by veterinarians and politicians. The court ruling and the evidence used may now be legitimately used to fight BSL in other countries such as Germany and Australia, as well as other US States. In the UK, the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act could possibly be open to a direct egal challenge in the same way. Yes, PLEASE!!! What great news, this is something that could benefit the WHOLE WORLD!!!! Lets hope so, anyway :D Quote
Rowie-the-Pooh Posted August 17, 2003 Posted August 17, 2003 YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D Took them long enough! :roll: Next up: THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote
courtnek Posted August 17, 2003 Posted August 17, 2003 I find it interesting that this came out right about the same time we saw that post asking for APBT's and AST's to donate blood for "research"..... I wonder if someone intends to try to take on the Supreme Court Ruling using genetics..... I'm too suspicious, I know..... :o Quote
Guest Anonymous Posted August 17, 2003 Posted August 17, 2003 YAY YAY YAY YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :klacz: Quote
Horsefeathers! Posted August 17, 2003 Posted August 17, 2003 courtnek napisał(a):I find it interesting that this came out right about the same time we saw that post asking for APBT's and AST's to donate blood for "research"..... I wonder if someone intends to try to take on the Supreme Court Ruling using genetics..... I'm too suspicious, I know..... :o Courtnek, I'm every bit as suspicious and not quite ready to celebrate. I mean, I do think it's a good decision (and forgive me, Guest, if I'm wrong), but I am questioning Guest's motives. I'm wondering if it's the same person who so adamantly refuses to believe that APBT's are DOG aggressive and is using this as a means to say they aren't aggressive at all? Like you, I'm just too cynical, I reckon, but I do welcome the opportunity for someone to prove me wrong. Quote
courtnek Posted August 17, 2003 Posted August 17, 2003 That's what I'm worried about. They are dog agressive, we all know that, but is it tied to genetics? no one knows that for sure.... either way, they are NOT bred to be people aggressive, in fact, quite the reverse usually, but ill-treatment of any dog will make it mean. Unfortunately, there are too many people who believe that dogs are just like people, and if your dog is mean to other animals than it has to be mean to people as well. It's a mindset that makes me want to slap some people upside the head..... Like people who believe that if your dog kills a rabbit, or a squirrel, it then has "blood lust" and will never be tame again....The fact that hunting is instinctive to them doesnt seem to get through to them. My girl has killed squirrels, and mice. Does that mean she is vicious and cant be trusted? This is the same "logic" they are using to ban the Pits. I am very happy about the ruling, but suspicious of the new desire for "genetic sampling" they suddenly want..... Quote
courtnek Posted August 17, 2003 Posted August 17, 2003 And WHY, I have to ask, is it ok, even encouraged, for cats to be mousers and rodent killers, but if a dog does that suddenly it's vicious? In the wild they are both hunters. I have one of each. The cat is by far more dangerous than the dog around people. He has been known to take a nip out of your ankle if you didnt feed him when he wanted to be fed. The dog gives him a WIDE berth as well.....even though she outweighs him by 62 lbs..... :o Quote
Rowie-the-Pooh Posted August 17, 2003 Posted August 17, 2003 And WHY, I have to ask, is it ok, even encouraged, for cats to be mousers and rodent killers, but if a dog does that suddenly it's vicious? Exactly! There are loads of known terriers who where bred for ratting, so it is in their blood. When they kill a rat or mouse or any other animal (as their instincts tell them to) they are suddenly vicious... :-? But when cats bring in a dead bird or rat, it's quite okay! Nobody thinks anything of it! I had 4 rescued cats, and other stray cats that I fed. Making a total of 11! (I spayed and neutered the strays :wink:) And as I fed the strays, provided shelter (in a shed or box), and even nuetered and spayed them, I counted them as mine. Loads of times the cats would bring in dead animals. Ranging from mice to birds and even the occasional hedgehog! :o Nobody thought it was vicious, but when my dog brought in a dead chick one day, all the nieghbors complained (I have no idea how they found out :-?) that Honey may be visious and that she had a "killer instinct" and that I should that I should keep the cats away from her. And that if they saw her bring in a dead animal of any kind they would call the police because they where worried for their children! :x We made sure that she didn't bring in anything dead from then on! How RUDE! Quote
courtnek Posted August 17, 2003 Posted August 17, 2003 i HAVE EXPLAINED IT THIS WAY: Dogs that have to hunt to survive, homeless strays who form packs, have the infamous "blood lust" because they have to. It's the only way they will survive and they are often leary of people once the wild is brought back out. The wild is ALWAYS there - and will never go away. It can be kept behind the scenes, if the dog is treated and fed well, but if not, it will pop back up in a heartbeat..... The giveawy between blood lust and hunting, is a dog that really has blood lust will eat the kill, and wont share it with anyone but other pack members. The dog that brings it to you sees his place as submissive to you and is trying to gain points with the alpha. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.