And Akitas make the BSL List... How about Shibas?

Does Akita "and mixes thereof" include Shibas?  Might as well disclose my personal interest and bias right up front on this one.

Above is an Akita Inu.

And this is a Shiba Inu.  How many of you can tell the difference?  While there are most certainly similarities and they are likely closely related breeds, there is one great big damn difference: The Shiba Inu weighs in at 17-23 pounds (mine are 18 and 20 pounds) while the Akita Inu is twice that size.  And neither of these is the breed the twits below are probably attempting to outlaw.  That would most likely be the 70-100 pound American Akita.  However, I guarandamntee that the 3 very distinct breeds share DNA and looks enough that all 3 breeds will be at risk under that law below.

I'm not even going to attempt to explain the utter STUPIDITY of breed specific bans enacted by the utterly incompetent and ignorant.  I am looking at the list below of 7 breeds with "and mixes thereof"; knowing that means any dog that looks like it "might" have some blood from one of these breeds is going to get hung out to dry.  Jeez, I thought this stupidity was essentially conquered back with the insanity over Doberman Pinschers eons ago!

Makes me sorry I did a DNA test on the stray I took in!  Now I did that in hopes of having a better understanding of her inherent traits, to help with training her, to know for medical reasons what illnesses or genetic defects she might be more likely to have to deal with.  She turned out to be about 3/4 Lab and 1/4 GSD.  I think I'll hunt that document down and BURN it today!!!

So here's the essence of the email I received but my request at the end won't be quite the same as the one in this email:

The Animal Control Committee of the Pointe Coupee Police Jury has proposed an ordinance that would target the following breeds (and mixes thereof):
  • "Pit Bulls",
  • Rottweilers,
  • Chow Chows,
  • German Shepherds,
  • Doberman Pinchers,
  • Boxers, and
  • Akitas

Please send your POLITE, RESPECTFUL and INFORMATIVE opposition to breed specific legislation to the Parish officials listed below.  Please be sure to include viable alternatives and suggestions for their consideration, as well.  This issue will be brought up at the Jury's next meeting on May 25, 2010.
Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana
  • Pointe Coupee Parish Police Jury
    P.O. Box 290, New Roads, Louisiana 70760
    (225) 638-9556
  • Fax (225) 638-5555
  • Email address:  jbello@pcpolicejury .org
  •  
  • Mr. Allen Monk
    P.O. Box 285, Batchelor, LA 70715
    (225) 492-3704
  •  
  • Mr. John Pourciau
    3768 La. Hwy. 419W, Batchelor, LA 70715
    (225) 492-2701
  •  
  • Mr. Russell Young 
    9005 Mandela Drive, New Roads, LA 70760
    (225) 638-3941
  •  
  • Mr. Glenn Ray Cline
    14110 Chenal Road, Jarreau, LA 70749
    (225) 627-9511
  •  
  • Mr. Willie Olinde
    P.O. Box 256, Ventress, LA 70783
    (225) 638-8726
  •  
  • Mrs. Melanie Bueche
    11850 Hwy 416, Lakeland, LA 70752
    (225) 627-4055
  •  
  • Mr. Albert Dukes
    8979 Rodney Drive, New Roads, LA 70760
    (225) 638-3383
  •  
  • Mr. Cornell Dukes
    309 Railroad Street, New Roads, LA 70760
    (225) 638-8778
  •  
  • Mrs. Janet Vosburg
    9431 False River Road, New Roads, LA 70760
    (225) 638-8328
  •  
  • Mr. Kurt Jarreau
    P. O. Box 383, Livonia, LA 70755
    (225) 637-2540
  •  
  • Mr. Joseph Bergeron, Sr.
    P. O. Box 90, Fordoche, LA 70732
    (225) 637-3486
  •  
  • Mr. Clifford Nelson
    P. O. Box 336, Ventress, LA 70783
    (225) 638-3589

Animal Control panel tweaks dog proposal

Ban would apply to certain breeds
  • By KORAN ADDO
  • Advocate Westside bureau
  • Published: May 12, 2010 - Page: 4B
 
NEW ROADS — Pointe Coupee Police Juror Russell Young drew a second line in the sand in as many weeks Tuesday, pressing hard for adoption of a parishwide ban on large and potentially dangerous dogs.
 
Young’s move came as Animal Control Committee Chairwoman Carol Vincent proposed changes to the parish’s animal ordinance calling for tighter restrictions on owners of certain breeds of dogs. The panel is composed of citizen volunteers appointed by the Police Jury.
 
Under the committee’s proposal, German shepherds, Doberman pinschers, Rottweilers, boxers, Akitas, chow chows and any of the four breeds that fall under the pit bull umbrella would be subject to the new ordinance.
 
During the discussion, Vincent said that some insurance companies won’t extend homeowner’s insurance to people who own some of the breeds cited by the committee.
 
That’s when Young stood up and loudly called for a public hearing to set in motion a ban on those breeds.
 
During the April 27 Police Jury meeting, Young vigorously argued in favor of a ban on pit bull ownership, asserting he would not support any animal control ordinance that didn’t include the ban.
 
Members of Tuesday’s audience murmured in agreement with Young in calling for a breed-specific ban. However, none of Young’s colleagues on the Police Jury followed suit and the discussion continued.
 
The committee’s proposal states that owners of the breeds in question must be 18 years old, never have been convicted of a felony, must provide proof that canine vaccinations are up to date and must pay a one-time, $50 licensing fee to own the dog in the parish.
 
Owners would also be required to place muzzles on their dogs when the dogs are not on the owner’s property and have an identification microchip implanted in the animal, allowing animal control officers to identify a loose dog’s owner.
 
The proposal further requires the specified breeds be kept in their owner’s home or behind a chain link, wooden, or electronic fence.
 
When jurors suggested the parish would have trouble paying to enforce such a new ordinance, committee member Steve Juge pointed to fines the ordinance would impose.
 
“Once you start putting these regulations in place, this body will have the money to hire people to enforce the ordinance,” Juge told the Police Jury.
 
The fines would range up to $500 for a first violation of the ordinance, not less than $300 for a second violation and $500 for a third violation.
 
After the discussion, Police Jury President Melanie Bueche expressed support for the proposal, saying it would both protect the public and give responsible people who want to own potentially dangerous dogs an opportunity to keep their pets.
 
The Police Jury asked Parish Attorney John Wayne Jewell to look over the proposal before it’s brought back up for discussion at the jury’s May 25 regular meeting.
 

---------------------------------------

If you ask me, we've been polite and respectful far too long and, if we keep that up, they're going to legislate us right out of our pets!  I, for one, am mad as hell!  And I'm not willing to take this crap anymore.

Tell them things are already BAD ENOUGH; to get their grubby, murderous paws off OUR animals.  Make a thunderous roar to rival a storm!  You need to get mad as hell and stay that way.

Is this guy at the end of the table named Wayne?

Well, don't you believe it.  We squished most of those and we can squish the new ones that have risen since then.  This Republic is still alive and kicking but to keep it that way, we have to get

MAD      AS      HELL

I'm getting close to calling for microchipping HSUS and PETA supporters!  How about muzzles and mandatory spay/neuter for them too?  After all, it's their concept that we're all equal animals and many of them have clearly reverted to feral behavior already.  TNR does mean Trap, Neuter/Spay, Microchip, and release these days, doesn't it?

Go Back

 Posted in General
  Tags animal saving


Comment