The Pasadena Sun recently reported that the city is mulling over the idea of banning Pit Bulls. City Councilman Steve Madison, at a 10/1 meeting of the council’s Public Safety Committee, had this to say…
Time after time, a Pit Bull chews a kid to death somewhere, and I’m not going to let that happen in Pasadena. I would have no problem saying Pasadena’s a special place: If you want to live here, come, but don’t bring your Pit Bull.
The article then further points out that current California law prevents any city from banning any breed or “type” of dog, but notes a law in San Francisco that requires that all Pit Bulls be spayed or neutered. This is now apparently being discussed by Pasadena officials, as a way around Madison’s desire for a ban.
I sincerely hope that people do understand that any breed-specific legislation, whether an outright ban or an alienated mandatory spay/neuter proposal, should be opposed by any and everyone that truly cares about this type of dog. BSL is BSL. There’s no minimizing it or putting a happy face on it. Mandatory spaying and neutering of just Pit Bull-type dogs is obviously meant to eliminate them over a generation. That’s their cutesy way of getting around the law, while also saving face and posing to do a good service.
But ignore that for a moment, even if Madison already played his hand. You can’t seriously get away with proposing a mandatory sterilize law for a specific breed or type unless you 1) Claim that that breed or type has an “overpopulation” issue, or 2) Imply that that breed or type is dangerous and aggressive, and that the sterilization would then help in that regard. Well, it’s a given fact that a sterilized dog is by and large a less dominant dog. That goes for any breed or type of dog. But implying that Pit Bulls are more aggressive is just false. And implying that any “overpopulation” issue then justifies phasing them out is a flawed (and disturbing) way of thinking.
Let’s be serious for a second… They don’t want to honestly stop any so-called “overpopulation” problem, or they’d genuinely be attempting to address instead the inordinate amount of failure that lingers in almost every single shelter within this state. They’d genuinely be proposing instead some serious shelter reform that could be put into place and aimed at drastically lowering the amount of killing that is currently taking place in almost every shelter in California. They’d genuinely be asking more of shelter staff and the political bureaucrats (themselves) that have appointed aforementioned shelter staff (primarily the manager and the person above them). Because not only did they (in most cases) appoint them, but their inaction consistently protects the shelter higher-ups and allows them to continue dictating their ways, while they also continue to kill and pay no mind to alternative options of addressing the problem that the bureaucrats are now going to pretend to want to address. All this would involve lawmakers, in Pasadena and at any other level, stepping back and critically examining themselves and the people that they’ve appointed, the same people that continue to apply these obviously failing positions. Oh, and not to mention that their idea of wanting to “help” with the spaying and neutering is only mandated upon Pit Bulls and Pit Bulls only. Why then? Because if it was a genuine cry of “overpopulation” then it would be focused on ALL dogs, since dogs of every breed and type are discarded by the smaller, non-caring, irresponsible faction of our society. And if these attempts were in any way meant to not negatively stereotype Pit Bulls as aggressive and unworthy of living, then wouldn’t they want to direct their focus onto the owners of any dog that causes a legitimate problem? And then how do they plan to determine “what is” and “what isn’t” a Pit Bull? You can believe what you want, but I know disingenuousness when I see it. You should too.
Some will say, well, it’s “just” in Pasadena. Please realize that precedent is a dangerous thing. A bad idea gaining precedent, and then being repeatedly carried out, is far more dangerous than any dog. If Pasadena’s attempt to sterilize all Pit Bull-type dogs were to actually happen, and then let’s imagine it were to be repeated in city after city, or worse, statewide or federally… Well, that would mean that after 1 generation there would be no more Pit Bull-type dogs. I know that’s a big jump to make, to believe that a city ordinance would eventually be adopted nationwide, but this isn’t a game and shouldn’t be shrugged off or ignored. So now, let’s imagine that this idea wasn’t Pit Bull-specific, and instead was applied to every dog. I mean, I certainly know many people that continue to harp on “overpopulation” and what not, and continue to use that phrase to consistently excuse abhorrent shelter killing. So do y’all then support the mandatory spaying and neutering of ALL dogs? Because again, if effectively carried out, that would over 1 generation amount to no dogs. Is everyone okay with that? Because if you’re not then you either don’t understand, you’re a hypocrite or you’re bias against Pit Bull-type dogs.
In 2008 Los Angeles City passed a law requiring that ALL dogs and cats be spayed or neutered. They couldn’t get away with making it breed-specific, even though many people originally wanted it that way. But regarding the ordinance that was eventually agreed upon… It’s had pathetic results thus far and not a single person can deny it. Killing increased 30% within the first year alone. Intake and kill numbers rose again in year 2. They both dipped slightly in year 3 and then rose again in year 4. Why? Well, for one, a lot of people can’t afford the procedure. With very few low or no cost options available (L.A. closed many clinics years ago in a flurry of budget cuts) it becomes rather difficult for many people to even comply. This creates more surrenders into the shelter, as well as creates more confiscations from people who have now “broken” the new law. Allow me to also mention that prior to this law passing there was 8 straight years of decreasing kill numbers! So please ask yourself, are these laws actually helping, or are they simply empowering a system that ultimately impounds and kills more animals? After a review of the proposal L.A. City then waved the white flag and announced that they will now rely on “voluntary compliance.” What in the hell does that mean? Isn’t that what we had prior to the passing of the bogus law? So apparently they just swindled the taxpayer and made off with more funding for a failing animal control. A “mandatory” anything doesn’t ever attempt to rely on communication or education, which should in reality be the foundation of everything.
In closing, I resent and am truly offended by anyone that attempts to put a loving face on BSL. Mandatory spay/neuter for only Pit Bulls is BSL. Politicians can’t ban them here (at least not right now) so this is their disguised alternative. Don’t be fooled by the rhetoric.
If you’d like to let your voices be heard then please consider going to StopBSL.org’s article, and at the bottom they provide many contact options.