- Signatures: 1,006
- Goal: 10,000
- Deadline: 7-6-2007
See Full Petition
Email this Petition
They have been talking of limiting the number of
"Dangerous dogs" a person can own in Indiana. The News has stated that
they were trying to limit the number to two dogs per person and they
had to be indoors! But by definition, a "dangerous dog" could be your grandmother's poodle!!
We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of the City of Indianapolis and neighboring cities. While recognizing the concerns of Indianapolis residents, we are extremely alarmed regarding the pit bull (dangerous dogs) ordinances that are being proposed, which would have a negative impact on responsible, law-abiding dog owners. These ordinances would have an impact on not only Indianapolis citizens, but also those who choose to visit Indianapolis to show their dogs in legal events, to do business in the community, or to visit family and friends. Following are listed our specific concerns.
(1) Available data indicates that a dog of ANY breed (regardless of size) can bite/ and or cause fatalities. Studies published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association conclude that there is NO reliable data identifying biting dogs by breed.
As well, the American Temperament Test Society has available results of dogs tested by them. As of December 2002, the following results were found:
(Number of dogs tested) [Percent of dogs passed]
American Pit Bull Terrier (405) [83.2%]
American Staffordshire Terrier (437) [82.6%]
Golden Retriever (612) [82.5%]
Labrador Retriever (597) [90.6%]
Shetland Sheepdog (426) [66.2%]
Collie (722) [78.8%]
This can be verified with the A.T.T.S. by calling them at (314)869-6103 or on the web at www.atts.org.
(2) The term “pitbull” is not a breed nor is it recognized by reputible breed organizations or kennel clubs. Pitbull is a variety of breed that describes American Pit Bull Terriers and mixes, American Staffordshire Terriers and mixes, and Staffordshire Terriers and mixes, and is often mistakenly used to describe other similar breeds (such as bull terriers and American bulldogs). It is very difficult or impossible to tell these breeds apart and, as a result, it is impossible to fairly enforce the proposed ordinaces.
(3) Cities that have tried to solve their dangerous dog problem by restricting or banning breeds have discovered that such laws do not work. Recently, Cincinnati, OH has repealed its ban on specific breeds and Baltimore, MD has removed all breed specific references from its ordinance, and PA prohibits any BSL.
(4) There is no reliable method by which to scientifically determine the breed of a dog. It is impossible to determine whether a mixed breed dog is 50% of any particular breed. To require the owner of a mixed breed dog to prove that the dog is NOT 50% of a targeted breed places an impossible burden on that citizen. The question of constitutionality comes into play here.
(5) The majority of the owners of targeted breeds are responsible, law-abiding citizens. The proposed ordinances unfairly brand these people as unreliable and irresponsible, solely because they own a targeted breed. Again, there is a question regarding the rights of citizens in regard to personal property. Additionally, we belive the irresponsible owners that are the real source of breed related concern will not be affected, as they will continue to own the dogs illegally or will create other, more dangerous breeds.
(6) It is the consensus of knowledgeable dog experts (as reported in the JAVMA article, "A Community Solution to the Dog Bite Problem") that targeting the owners and the specific dangerous dog, not breeds of dogs, is the key to addressing the dog bite and "dangerous dog" problems.
(7) It takes a large amount of funding for these ordinance provisions requiring the training, testing, and property examination. Passing laws that cannot be enforced increases citizen cynicism regarding effective government.
(8) This proposal is an obvious camouflage form of breed specific legislation, targeting larger breeds of dogs. While not specifically stated, it's primary function is to limit larger breeds, including, but not limited to, Rottweilers, Pit Bulls, Dobermans, Shepherds, Boxers, Huskies, Malamutes, Great Danes, Mastiffs, Cane Corsos, etc.
(9) Inadvertently this proposal will remove responsibility of dog owners and place it solely on the animal, thus causing irresponsible ownership to run amok in the city of Indianapolis. This will only create more problems and less solutions. "Laws that restrict the ownership of certain breeds of dogs but fail to address the actions of their owners are likely to be ineffective in reducing the number of fatal dog attacks, according to a study by federal health officials published in the current issue of the journal Pediatrics." (The Washington Post, June 11, 1996)
In summary, the proposed ordinances are unfair, costly to taxpayers to enforce, time consuming to enforcement agents, and unnecessary. We urge you to veto this ordinance.
Sincerely,
"Dangerous dogs" a person can own in Indiana. The News has stated that
they were trying to limit the number to two dogs per person and they
had to be indoors! But by definition, a "dangerous dog" could be your grandmother's poodle!!
We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of the City of Indianapolis and neighboring cities. While recognizing the concerns of Indianapolis residents, we are extremely alarmed regarding the pit bull (dangerous dogs) ordinances that are being proposed, which would have a negative impact on responsible, law-abiding dog owners. These ordinances would have an impact on not only Indianapolis citizens, but also those who choose to visit Indianapolis to show their dogs in legal events, to do business in the community, or to visit family and friends. Following are listed our specific concerns.
(1) Available data indicates that a dog of ANY breed (regardless of size) can bite/ and or cause fatalities. Studies published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association conclude that there is NO reliable data identifying biting dogs by breed.
As well, the American Temperament Test Society has available results of dogs tested by them. As of December 2002, the following results were found:
(Number of dogs tested) [Percent of dogs passed]
American Pit Bull Terrier (405) [83.2%]
American Staffordshire Terrier (437) [82.6%]
Golden Retriever (612) [82.5%]
Labrador Retriever (597) [90.6%]
Shetland Sheepdog (426) [66.2%]
Collie (722) [78.8%]
This can be verified with the A.T.T.S. by calling them at (314)869-6103 or on the web at www.atts.org.
(2) The term “pitbull” is not a breed nor is it recognized by reputible breed organizations or kennel clubs. Pitbull is a variety of breed that describes American Pit Bull Terriers and mixes, American Staffordshire Terriers and mixes, and Staffordshire Terriers and mixes, and is often mistakenly used to describe other similar breeds (such as bull terriers and American bulldogs). It is very difficult or impossible to tell these breeds apart and, as a result, it is impossible to fairly enforce the proposed ordinaces.
(3) Cities that have tried to solve their dangerous dog problem by restricting or banning breeds have discovered that such laws do not work. Recently, Cincinnati, OH has repealed its ban on specific breeds and Baltimore, MD has removed all breed specific references from its ordinance, and PA prohibits any BSL.
(4) There is no reliable method by which to scientifically determine the breed of a dog. It is impossible to determine whether a mixed breed dog is 50% of any particular breed. To require the owner of a mixed breed dog to prove that the dog is NOT 50% of a targeted breed places an impossible burden on that citizen. The question of constitutionality comes into play here.
(5) The majority of the owners of targeted breeds are responsible, law-abiding citizens. The proposed ordinances unfairly brand these people as unreliable and irresponsible, solely because they own a targeted breed. Again, there is a question regarding the rights of citizens in regard to personal property. Additionally, we belive the irresponsible owners that are the real source of breed related concern will not be affected, as they will continue to own the dogs illegally or will create other, more dangerous breeds.
(6) It is the consensus of knowledgeable dog experts (as reported in the JAVMA article, "A Community Solution to the Dog Bite Problem") that targeting the owners and the specific dangerous dog, not breeds of dogs, is the key to addressing the dog bite and "dangerous dog" problems.
(7) It takes a large amount of funding for these ordinance provisions requiring the training, testing, and property examination. Passing laws that cannot be enforced increases citizen cynicism regarding effective government.
(8) This proposal is an obvious camouflage form of breed specific legislation, targeting larger breeds of dogs. While not specifically stated, it's primary function is to limit larger breeds, including, but not limited to, Rottweilers, Pit Bulls, Dobermans, Shepherds, Boxers, Huskies, Malamutes, Great Danes, Mastiffs, Cane Corsos, etc.
(9) Inadvertently this proposal will remove responsibility of dog owners and place it solely on the animal, thus causing irresponsible ownership to run amok in the city of Indianapolis. This will only create more problems and less solutions. "Laws that restrict the ownership of certain breeds of dogs but fail to address the actions of their owners are likely to be ineffective in reducing the number of fatal dog attacks, according to a study by federal health officials published in the current issue of the journal Pediatrics." (The Washington Post, June 11, 1996)
In summary, the proposed ordinances are unfair, costly to taxpayers to enforce, time consuming to enforcement agents, and unnecessary. We urge you to veto this ordinance.
Sincerely,
| Number | Date | Prefix | Name |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1,007 | 3:33 pm PST, Feb 9 | Mr. | Giordano Schillaci |
| 1,006 | 1:59 pm PST, Jan 19 | Mr. | Crisologo Gregorio |
| 1,005 | 8:09 pm PST, Jan 18 | Clint L Davidson | |
| 1,004 | 10:41 am PST, Nov 30 | Jeffrey Boyce | |
| 1,003 | 12:19 pm PST, Nov 19 | Ms. | Devon Montgomery |
| 1,002 | 5:54 pm PDT, Oct 17 | Ms. | Brittani Hoff |
| 1,001 | 4:09 pm PDT, Oct 4 | billy thurman | |
| 1,000 | 12:05 pm PDT, Sep 8 | Ms. | Zoey White |
| 999 | 6:36 am PDT, Aug 14 | Mr. | Michael Maggart |
| 998 | 11:09 pm PDT, Aug 12 | Mr. | Lawrence Dunham |
| 997 | 4:13 pm PDT, Aug 11 | Mrs. | Malinda Berry |
| 996 | 8:18 am PDT, Aug 11 | Josh McClellan | |
| 995 | 9:53 am PDT, Jul 10 | Evan Heald | |
| 994 | 4:42 pm PDT, Jun 29 | Mrs. | sarah harper |
| 993 | 1:49 pm PDT, Jun 29 | Mrs. | Anonymous |
| 992 | 11:52 am PDT, Jun 25 | Ms. | S Rodrigues |
| 991 | 8:59 am PDT, Jun 5 | nichole powell | |
| 990 | 6:01 pm PDT, May 23 | Mrs. | Lori Fricks |
| 989 | 12:59 am PDT, May 23 | Mrs. | avril kettle |
| 988 | 11:52 am PDT, May 16 | Ms. | Silky Wylder |
| 987 | 4:32 pm PDT, May 14 | Ms. | Laura Jaramillo |
| 986 | 3:48 am PDT, May 13 | Ms. | Elaine Robinson |
| 985 | 3:19 am PDT, May 13 | Ms. | Anonymous |
| 984 | 11:30 am PDT, May 12 | ALPHA WI | |
| 983 | 11:54 pm PDT, May 3 | Mrs. | Joan Fleming |
| 982 | 9:32 pm PDT, Apr 27 | Andrea Smith | |
| 981 | 2:28 pm PDT, Apr 21 | Lyndsay Slatton | |
| 980 | 10:52 am PDT, Apr 20 | Anonymous | |
| 979 | 8:40 am PDT, Apr 19 | Ms. | Heather Shrout |
| 978 | 3:45 pm PDT, Apr 15 | Ms. | Anonymous |
| 977 | 8:37 pm PDT, Apr 14 | Angie Simmons | |
| 976 | 5:21 pm PDT, Apr 14 | Ms. | Aileen Worden |
| 975 | 7:01 am PDT, Apr 14 | Amber Simmons | |
| 974 | 7:22 am PDT, Apr 13 | Anonymous | |
| 973 | 11:18 am PDT, Apr 10 | Mr. | lonnie mills |
| 972 | 7:23 am PDT, Apr 10 | Bryan Franz | |
| 971 | 6:03 am PDT, Apr 10 | Mr. | James G Richason III |
| 970 | 4:31 am PDT, Apr 10 | Rebecca L. Nichols | |
| 969 | 8:39 pm PDT, Apr 9 | chris martin | |
| 968 | 7:52 pm PDT, Apr 9 | Mrs. | Deb Stokes |
| 967 | 6:59 pm PDT, Apr 9 | Mr. | Ben colon |
| 966 | 3:24 pm PDT, Apr 9 | Mr. | JUSTIN SCOTT |
| 965 | 2:29 pm PDT, Apr 9 | Mr. | Jared A Darnell |
| 964 | 2:23 pm PDT, Apr 9 | Mr. | Brent Henderson |
| 963 | 1:15 pm PDT, Apr 9 | Mr. | JC Biggs |
| 962 | 11:09 am PDT, Apr 9 | Mr. | Choua Yang |
| 961 | 11:01 am PDT, Apr 9 | Anonymous | |
| 960 | 10:46 am PDT, Apr 9 | Mr. | Josh Vonhauger |
| 959 | 10:34 am PDT, Apr 9 | Jim Aba | |
| 958 | 10:27 am PDT, Apr 9 | Ms. | Melinda Milam |
| 957 | 10:22 am PDT, Apr 9 | Mr. | Joshua Hayes |
| 956 | 10:20 am PDT, Apr 9 | Ricky Johnson | |
| 955 | 10:18 am PDT, Apr 9 | Stacy Ivie | |
| 954 | 10:14 am PDT, Apr 9 | LeAnna Goebel | |
| 953 | 10:11 am PDT, Apr 9 | Sarah Benson | |
| 952 | 9:59 am PDT, Apr 9 | Cary Hendrickson | |
| 951 | 9:44 am PDT, Apr 9 | Mr. | SCOTT REITZ |
Indiana BSL
We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens of the City of Providence
and neighboring cities. While recognizing the concerns of Providence
residents, we are extremely alarmed regarding the pit bull ordinances
that are being proposed, which would have a negative impact on
responsible, law-abiding dog owners. These ordinances would have an
impact on not only Providence citizens, but also those who choose to
visit Providence to show their dogs in legal events, to do business in
the community, or to visit family and friends. Following are listed our
specific concerns.
(1) Available data indicates that a dog of ANY breed can bite. Studies
published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
conclude that there is NO reliable data identifying biting dogs by
breed.
As well, the American Temperament Test Society has available results of
dogs tested by them. As of December 2002, the following results were
found:
(Number of dogs tested) [Percent of dogs passed]
American Pit Bull Terrier (405) [83.2%]
American Staffordshire Terrier (437) [82.6%]
Golden Retriever (612) [82.5%]
Labrador Retriever (597) [90.6%]
Shetland Sheepdog (426) [66.2%]
Collie (722) [78.8%]
This can be verified with the A.T.T.S. by calling them at (314)869-6103 or on the web at www.atts.org.
(2) The term “pitbull” is not a breed nor is it recognized by reputible
breed organizations or kennel clubs. Pitbull is a variety of breed that
describes American Pit Bull Terriers and mixes, American Staffordshire
Terriers and mixes, and Staffordshire Terriers and mixes, and is often
mistakenly used to describe other similar breeds (such as bull terriers
and American bulldogs). It is very difficult or impossible to tell
these breeds apart and, as a result, it is impossible to fairly enforce
the proposed ordinaces.
(3) Cities that have tried to solve their dangerous dog problem by
restricting or banning breeds have discovered that such laws do not
work. Recently, Cincinnati, OH has repealed its ban on specific breeds
and Baltimore, MD has removed all breed specific references from its
ordinance, and PA prohibits any BSL.
(4) There is no reliable method by which to scientifically determine
the breed of a dog. It is impossible to determine whether a mixed breed
dog is 50% of any particular breed. To require the owner of a mixed
breed dog to prove that the dog is NOT 50% of a targeted breed places
an impossible burden on that citizen. The question of constitutionality
comes into play here.
(5) The majority of the owners of targeted breeds are responsible,
law-abiding citizens. The proposed ordinances unfairly brand these
people as unreliable and irresponsible, solely because they own a
targeted breed. Again, there is a question regarding the rights of
citizens in regard to personal property. Additionally, we belive the
irresponsible owners that are the real source of breed related concern
will not be affected, as they will continue to own the dogs illegally
or will create other, more dangerous breeds.
(6) It is the consensus of knowledgeable dog experts (as reported in
the JAVMA article, "A Community Solution to the Dog Bite Problem") that
targeting the owners and the specific dangerous dog, not breeds of
dogs, is the key to addressing the dog bite and "dangerous dog"
problems.
(7) It takes a large amount of funding for these ordinance provisions
requiring the training, testing, and property examination. Passing laws
that cannot be enforced increases citizen cynicism regarding effective
government.
In summary, the proposed ordinances are unfair, costly to taxpayers to
enforce, time consuming to enforcement agents, and unnecessary. We urge
you to veto this ordinance.
Sincerely,
Note: This Indiana BSL petition was submitted by Cape Fear American Pit Bull Terrier. ThePetitionSite.com is a free service provided to help concerned citizens rally support for issues they believe in. The opinions expressed by this petition do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of ThePetitionSite.com or Care2.com. There is no express or implied endorsement of this petition nor any newsletter offers (except those from Care2.com) by Care2.com, Inc, ThePetitionSite.com, or our sponsors. If you believe this system is being abused, please contact customer support.
Questions about this petition? Contact the petition sponsor: Cape Fear American Pit Bull Terrier.
Questions about thePetitionSite.com? Visit our FAQ Page.
