California Breed Ban

[alita_gsd]

Governor Schwartzenegger signed Breed Specific Legislation into law in October, 2005. The law was written at the request of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who wanted to stop "pit bull attacks" on humans. In the real world, he wanted to figure out a way to make life difficult for a certain criminal element in his city. So he asked Senator Jackie Speier to write the law for him, and she was a good choice, as her way into office was paid 100%by insurance companies and insurance lawyers.

So here's the law she devised: Any city or county in California can enact Breed Specific Legislation, but only insofar as it results in mandatory spay/neuter laws. Sounds good, except it has NO EXCEPTIONS, including for show dogs. Now, here's where it gets really interesting, and you can see the conniving involved. The Insurance Commisioner has said that if a community has deemed certain breeds dangerous or vicious, then insurance companies will no longer offer homeowners' or renters' insurance to people who own those breeds. This is what lawyers, legislators, and insurance people call a DE FACTO BAN. It sneaks around to the back door and destroys families by making them choose between their beloved pets and their homes.

The governor signed it into law in October. On January 5, 2006, it will begin to destroy dogs. For example, one county has decided that no felon may own a dog over 20 lbs. So a man I know in that county, who 40 years ago got busted for pot (which was a felony back then), will have to give up his boxer dogs. I cringe to imagine the number of old guys who will be taking their old dogs to Contra Costa Animal Control.

San Francisco will not be allowing any dog over 40 lbs. in the city limits. Most golden retrievers weigh well over that.

If you or anybody you know is able to help us stop the vicious massacre that is about to happen, please visit www.chako.org. We need as many volunteers as possible to get petitions signed to overturn this bill.

Well, it sounds like they are getting agravated by all the maulings. This is indeed sad, they are looking for a quick fix, which does work, but its not right. I think that its a good idea that fellons cant own dogs over 20 pounds, hell, its a great idea! Many people who deal or use drugs, use pits to guard their stash. Fellons do not deserve large dogs.

[Mordy]

Originally Posted by alita_gsd

For example, one county has decided that no felon may own a dog over 20 lbs. So a man I know in that county, who 40 years ago got busted for pot (which was a felony back then), will have to give up his boxer dogs. I cringe to imagine the number of old guys who will be taking their old dogs to Contra Costa Animal Control.

San Francisco will not be allowing any dog over 40 lbs. in the city limits. Most golden retrievers weigh well over that.

i'm as much against BSL as a dog owner can be, but do you have any proof for these claims?

i very much doubt that they can apply such sweeping changes and affect dogs of any breed.

i also see that there are exceptions provided in regards to the spaying and neutering, specifically for breeding and show dogs. it's even in one of the links you have on your site.

so let's stick to facts and not conjecture. sensationalizing and presenting fase claims doesn't exactly help your cause.

[Richie12345]

I don't know what this country is turning into...

[Amstaffer]

Originally Posted by Mordy

i very much doubt that they can apply such sweeping changes and affect dogs of any breed.

Becareful, that is exactly what they hope you will think.

I don't understand why insurance companies don't just drop Dog bite coverage from all policies, If you have a dog that might bite....get dog bite insurance.


Check out the Assembly man at the bottom
http://www.chako.org/politicalagainst.html
Tim Leslie
His Father and Grandfather were most likely leading the lynch mobs 50 years ago. Fascist #&$hles like that scare me and make me VERY mad!

[Puckstop31]

Just build a wall around San Francisco....

Government left unchecked.... (Restrains self from making political comment)

[alita_gsd]

"i'm as much against BSL as a dog owner can be, but do you have any proof for these claims?

i very much doubt that they can apply such sweeping changes and affect dogs of any breed.

i also see that there are exceptions provided in regards to the spaying and neutering, specifically for breeding and show dogs. it's even in one of the links you have on your site.

so let's stick to facts and not conjecture. sensationalizing and presenting fase claims doesn't exactly help your cause."


I would strenuously suggest that you do your research before reaching such silly conclusions. I most certainly have NOT presented one single word of "conjecture," as you call it. I would think you might consider taking your own advice and stick to the facts. The law has already been signed by the governor, the insurance commissioner has already made his statement, and I can't imagine for one minute why you think I just sat there and wrote some fiction. Clearly this is not an appropriate place to post legitimate political issues and I'm quite sorry I bothered.

[Gempress]

Alita_gsd, I did a bit of research, and it looks like those "injustices" you posted are a bit into left field. Let me clarify this with facts. Here's what's really going on.

1. Beginning Jan. 1, 2006, there will be mandatory spay and neuter of pit bulls within the San Francsico city limits. You are still allowed to own pit bulls: there is no breed ban.

2. In Condra Costa County, felons are not allowed to own AGGRESSIVE dogs over 20 pounds. If the dog is not aggressive, the person can keep their dog.

3. Regarding breed-specific insurance discrimination, California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi said "I have no power to force the insurance companies to take on this particular liability."
Basically, all he said was that he cannot stop the insurance companies from discriminating based on dog breed. Each insurance company makes their own policies, and while there are some who discriminate, there are others that don't.

4. And no, San Francisco is certainly not banning dogs over 40 lbs.


For those wanting proof, this info was published in the San Francisco Chronicle on Nov. 16, 2005, and the insurance info was telecast on July 6, 2005, by the CBS news in San Francsico. It is true that the governor signed legislature that makes breed bans legal. To clarify: breed banning legislation is limited to mandatory spay/neuter laws. Now, that is a real worry. But, it is not enacting an actual ban. The law just makes it legal for Califonia communities to do so.

And those claims you made in your first post? The only info I found on that was published on that website you posted, www.chako.org. Sorry, I don't trust organizations like that. I trust facts, like written city ordinances and legitimate news organizations. If you can post some info like actual written legislation/council meeting minutes suppoting those claims, I will pay attention. But until then, I don't believe them.

[gaddylovesdogs]

1. Beginning Jan. 1, 2006, there will be mandatory spay and neuter of pit bulls within the San Francsico city limits. You are still allowed to own pit bulls: there is no breed ban.

2. In Condra Costa County, felons are not allowed to own AGGRESSIVE dogs over 20 pounds. If the dog is not aggressive, the person can keep their dog.

3. Regarding breed-specific insurance discrimination, California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi said "I have no power to force the insurance companies to take on this particular liability."
Basically, all he said was that he cannot stop the insurance companies from discriminating based on dog breed. Each insurance company makes their own policies, and while there are some who discriminate, there are others that don't.

4. And no, San Francisco is certainly not banning dogs over 40 lbs.

Sounds fair to me.

[Gempress]

Originally Posted by Gempress

Alita_gsd, I did a bit of research, and it looks like those "injustices" you posted are a bit into left field. Let me clarify this with facts. Here's what's really going on.

1. Beginning Jan. 1, 2006, there will be mandatory spay and neuter of pit bulls within the San Francsico city limits. You are still allowed to own pit bulls: there is no breed ban.

2. In Condra Costa County, felons are not allowed to own AGGRESSIVE dogs over 20 pounds. If the dog is not aggressive, the person can keep their dog.

3. Regarding breed-specific insurance discrimination, California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi said "I have no power to force the insurance companies to take on this particular liability."
Basically, all he said was that he cannot stop the insurance companies from discriminating based on dog breed. Each insurance company makes their own policies, and while there are some who discriminate, there are others that don't.

4. And no, San Francisco is certainly not banning dogs over 40 lbs.


For those wanting proof, this info was published in the San Francisco Chronicle on Nov. 16, 2005, and the insurance info was telecast on July 6, 2005, by the CBS news in San Francsico. It is true that the governor signed legislature that makes breed bans legal. To clarify: breed banning legislation is limited to mandatory spay/neuter laws. Now, that is a real worry. But, it is not enacting an actual ban. The law just makes it legal for Califonia communities to do so.

And those claims you made in your first post? The only info I found on that was published on that website you posted, www.chako.org. Sorry, I don't trust organizations like that. I trust facts, like written city ordinances and legitimate news organizations. If you can post some info like actual written legislation/council meeting minutes suppoting those claims, I will pay attention. But until then, I don't believe them.

EDIT: Sorry, I figure I should edit this to be absolutely clear on the issue of felons owning dogs. The exact wording is "Felons with nonaggressive dogs weighing more than 20 pounds could apply for a permit to keep their pets".