Love a dog, go to jail!

I don't know why stories like this always seem to hit the press on Fridays, but the forces of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom have struck again. Working through State Senator Jackie Speier (who, BTW, has been trying to ban gun shows for years) he's trying to get state law changed to allow San Francisco to enact breed-specific legislation against pit bulls:

This week, state Sen. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, introduced a bill that would change state law to allow local governments to enact animal-control laws directed at specific breeds. Speier's bill doesn't mention pit bulls explicitly, but given the recent attacks in the Bay Area involving the breed, most people see it as aimed at the squat, square-faced animals.

``Clearly, there has to be a response,'' said Richard Steffen, Speier's staff director. ``There has been a rash of attacks lately.''

Under the proposed SB 861, a city could decide whether it wanted to force pit bulls to wear muzzles or be neutered, or ensure that Rottweiler owners carry liability insurance. A hearing on the bill has been set before the Assembly Local Government Committee on Wednesday.

Historically, courts around the country have struck down breed-specific animal-control laws, saying they violate due-process and equal-protection guarantees for dog owners. But supporters are heartened by a court decision in Colorado last month that upheld breed-specific legislation.

So far, Speier's bill has been met with cautious enthusiasm by several Bay Area city leaders and some skepticism from those who believe that legislation is ineffective. The real solution, they say, is encouraging dog owners to voluntarily take steps to curb their pets' behavior.

The biggest support for Speier's proposal comes from San Francisco, where Mayor Gavin Newsom asked the senator to craft legislation to make the streets safer from aggressive dogs, and Concord, where in March an 11-year-old boy was seriously injured by a pit bull. On Thursday, San Jose Councilwoman Linda LeZotte said she will ask the full council to support Speier's legislation.

(More here.)

Meanwhile, the incredibly stupid woman I discussed twice has been indicted for felony child abuse. Predictably, people are seeing her as innocent, and the dogs as evil creatures which must be banned:

Faibish, 39, was arrested Thursday at San Francisco police headquarters and remained in custody in lieu of $75,000 bail. If convicted, she faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. This would be longer than the usual two- to six-year sentence on these charges because the endangerment resulted in death, Harris said. The district attorney said she ruled out a manslaughter charge.

Calling it ``a tragic case,'' Harris said in a statement that there ``is clear evidence that the defendant knew her child faced serious danger when she left the home.''

The Faibish family could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Raisa Akinshin, a neighbor who called 911 after seeing Nicholas' bloody body through her window the afternoon of the attack, said she was outraged by Harris' decision.

``She's a good mother. We all were naive. I used to play with the dogs,'' Akinshin said. ``It's the dogs' fault, not the mother's fault.''

Akinshin said she believes the intense media coverage of the tragedy was ``enough to send a message'' about the dangers of pit bulls and a trial is not necessary, especially because Maureen Faibish still mourns deeply.

Unbelievable. Again, it's tough to know where to begin.

This moronic woman (who says it was her son's "time" to die) was simply incompetent to own dogs, much less kids. To blame the dogs (when she knew she had a bad dog which had earlier bitten her son) makes about as much sense as it would to blame her car if she got drunk and plowed into someone. Once a dog -- or any animal -- has shown itself to be dangerous as hers had, there's a duty as a parent to do something about it. Had this woman owned a rattlesnake, and had she not been able to keep her son away from it, would we blame the snake?

What makes even less sense than blaming a dog for a bad owner who let it get out of hand is to blame other dogs which had absolutely nothing to do with it. Blaming dog B for the action of Dog A is about as logical as blaming person B for the action of person A.

Yet this is exactly what they are doing. A bunch of emotionally driven politicians and bureaucrats would make me into a criminal for owning my dear departed dog Puff, and my puppy Coco. All because someone else couldn't manage her dog.

They've also trotted out a seven-year-old CDC study claiming that "pit bulls" (a term impossible to define) are the number one dog problem, even though a more recent study contradicted the CDC and said that Rottweillers surpassed them. Never mind that the odds of being struck by lightning are five times greater than being killed by all dog breeds combined.

Why couldn't the founders have given us the right to own dogs?

I'm sorry but I'm very emotional about this, having recently lost Puff. I've tried to avoid making any hyperbolic comparisons, but I will say this: Breed specific legislation is evil, as all dogs are members of the same species -- Canis familiaris -- and the human counterpart of such legislation would never be countenanced by the people who are proposing to go after innocent dogs which have never harmed anyone, and the responsible pet owners who love them.

Bastards.

MORE: Here's Gavin Newsom, pontificating pompously about how he'd like to reach out and regulate my dogs:

I, for one, have had enough. I think it's time we get serious about pit bulls in this city, we get serious about pit bulls in this state, get serious about pit bulls across the United States of America.
Who the hell does he think he is?

Get serious?

He's picking on my dogs.

Some things are more serious than differences of opinion.

posted by Eric on 06.24.05 at 04:50 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2492



Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Love a dog, go to jail!:

» Speier Pulls a Fast One on BSL from damnum absque injuria
Once again, leave it to a liberal to do the wrong thing, even on an issue that is not traditionally viewed in terms of liberal vs. conservative. Via Classical Values, Uncly-Wuncly and San Jose Mercury-News (BugMeNot), we learn that State Sen. Jackie ... [Read More]
Tracked on June 25, 2005 03:43 PM



Comments

In California, it is illegal to ban dogs based on breed:

http://xrlq.com/2005/06/06/gavin-newsom-frisco-above-the-law-again/

SayUncle   ·  June 24, 2005 06:46 PM

Really, this is equivalent to race-specific legislation on humans.

Besides, what's a breed? The AKC has 130 (+/-) "recognized" breeds, but there are several other "breeds" they don't recognize.

Gary and the Samoyeds   ·  June 24, 2005 06:49 PM

I'm glad they're not outlawing Americans of Norwegian descent!

The state law problem is why Newsom has prodded Speier to get the state law changed.

Eric Scheie   ·  June 24, 2005 06:52 PM

Besides, aren't poodles the most likely dogs to bite someone?

I'm serious. They may not be responsible for many deaths, but standard poodles are... um... exciteable dogs of whom certain individuals have long been known to bite with little provocation.

But if you ask people about dogs, they'll blame the pit bulls and Rottweilers, little believing that poodles (and Dalmatians!) are more likely to bite than the vast majority of "scary" dogs.

B. Durbin   ·  June 24, 2005 10:25 PM

Oops, forgot to type the rest. The law likely won't change as CA is a very dog friendly state. They suck at rights actually enumerated in the constitution, but are OK with dogs.

SayUncle   ·  June 24, 2005 10:58 PM

Hope you're right about the legal situation. Something about the way this thing is gearing up scares me. Editorials demanding BSL are appearing in cities all over the country.

An individual dog (in the hands of a negligent parent) killed that child. "Pit bulls" did not. Are the bastards trying to impute collective guilt to dogs? Is this the dark side of too much multicultural mumbo jumbo?

Eric Scheie   ·  June 24, 2005 11:06 PM

Yes, this is collectivism now being applied to dogs. You are guilty, or your dog is guilty, for all the nasty things that your type of dog has ever done in the past. Your dog's ancestors probably participated in the slave trade, probably started it, in fact.

Under the Nazi Nuremburg Laws, dogs and other animals were categorized as "Aryan" or "Jewish". Is your dog a Zionist?

Steven, you raised an important point I'd never thought of. Dogs were once routinely used in the slave trade -- both to prevent escapes, and to track runaway slaves!

Only through Culturally Responsive Teaching can Coco be made to feel her share of guilt.

Eric Scheie   ·  June 25, 2005 08:09 AM
Historically, courts around the country have struck down breed-specific animal-control laws, saying they violate due-process and equal-protection guarantees for dog owners. But supporters are heartened by a court decision in Colorado last month that upheld breed-specific legislation.

Wrong and wrong. Dogs are not people, so due process and equal protection guarantees do not apply to them - and are no more likely to apply to their owners in this case than they are with any other law that prohibits possession of certain items but not others. The recent Colorado case upheld Denver's breed ban against a statewide ban on breed bans on the basis of Denver's home rule authority, not against a due process challenge, an equal protection challenge, or on any other basis that means much of anything outside Colorado.

Can just anybody write for the Merc Tribune? If so, where can I sign up? I think it would be loads of fun making random stuff up and passing it off as "news."

Xrlq   ·  June 25, 2005 01:32 PM

I goofed - actually, Ohio did strike down part of its BSL on a similar theory, and Alabama ruled that pit bulls could not be shown to be genetically dangerous. I still think the article's wording is overly broad, but it's not a complete fabrication as I had previously thought.

Xrlq   ·  June 25, 2005 03:14 PM

The most practical way for owners of "pit bulls" to fight the application of these laws (assuming the BSL goes through) is simply to deny their dogs are pit bulls.

Eric Scheie   ·  June 25, 2005 10:44 PM

What an amazing lot of emotional rubbish! If Gavin Newsom really wanted to "get serious," he'd be going after negligent or abusive pet owners. If this crowd can't be bothered with personal responsibility, don't they at least care about cruelty to animals? Doesn't anyone think it's cruel not to help an animal get along harmlessly among humans?

I don't think breed-specific laws are bad in themselves (governments have always regulated animals in populated areas, for both human and animal safety); but in this case, they're totally inappropriate and missing the point.

Raging Bee   ·  June 27, 2005 10:36 AM

Looking at BSL around the country, denying your dog is a pit will do you NO good. You have to PROVE it's not, and do it before Animal Services puts it down. Nope, the only way to fight this is head-on. Write letters, make phone calls, (be polite and intelligent) and use your own dog as an example of what a REAL Pit Bull is like. That's what I do! Raise your fist and resist!

John   ·  June 28, 2005 07:02 PM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits