After a long debate, in Jackson, MS. The City Council is about to approve a ordinance regulating dangerous dogs. The original proposal was to target only pit bulls. Pits were to be registered and confined. Failure to do so would result in 200 dollar fine and up to 30 days in jail. That didn't pass.
Then it was expanded to include 25 breeds cited by the CDC as dangerous breeds. Thankfully, it didn't pass either.

Next, week the Jackson City Council will vote on a proposal "owners of dangerous dogs must register them with the city's Animal Control and keep them contained. The authority would determine if a dog was dangerous. Only if a complaint had been filed." Penalties would range from 30 days in jail and a 200 dollar fine for 1st offense. 90 days in jail and 1000 dollar fine for a 3rd offense.

Jackson has one of the highest crime rates per capita in this country. These Morons should be focusing how they can help the local Police lower the crime rates. Stopping the Rapist,Murders,Armed Robbers and Drug dealers. Dog laws should be very simple. The owner is responsible for the dogs actions. No if and/or buts. How hard is that? Most bites could be prevented with minimum effort. A fence, basic obedience and a leash would stop the majority of bites.

I agree with the above post.

Often the reaction to a dog attack or attacks in a community is to create new ordinances when there are already ordinances that address the problem, but are not enforced.

A dog should not be deemed dangerous unless it is shown in court that it has already attacked a human, attacked another domesticated animal, or has been evaluated by a member of the local animal control to display dangerous behavior. Placing a dog into the category of "dangerous" simply because it belongs to a certain breed is unwarranted and without a rational basis in my opinion.

However, I think that it would be nice to see ordinances restricting dog breeding to those who have completed some basic type of course for the dog and owner (at their own expense), have a dog approved as healthy by a vet, and paid a license fee. Those in violation of such an ordinance should be fined and their dogs spayed or neutered.

Several cities surrounding Kansas City are enacting new laws to ban Pit Bulls. This stems from an incident a couple of weeks ago concerning an attack on a man mowing a yard in Independence Mo. There are numerous laws on the books of many of these same cities already enforcing containment issues of this breed. This new push is ridiculous and aimed, through the media of course, at many people who have never owned dogs by signiture draft of a petition to ban the breed. Over 2000 "concerned citizens" jumped on the band wagon and a vote was or is in the works in Independence Mo. How ironic that a city named Independence is totally relying on televized and printed media to influence the "independence" of its population. The city where this attack occured is still waiting on the vote, this is a very poor inner city community where the more affluent cities such as Overland Park, which is in Kansas and Liberty, (also ironic) Mo. have already enacted an ordinance to ban the breed. I would think the American Stafordshire terrier people would have done more to counter this if they did there was no mention of it that I heard. With all the money we fork out to the AKC and different canine orginizations around the country you would think someone would have the fortitude to get involved in these kind of legislations. I am sure German Shepherds will be on the agenda after Rottweilers. Why isn't there an organization that defends the breeds in this type of situation? All dogs can exhibit these territorial behaviors and laws are on the books for specific breeds how can certain situations garner another double jeopardy type law? Why can't the dog owners everywhere come together to fight these unjust laws? I would think the AKC would want to stand up to fight for one of its recognized breeds instead of just sitting on its haunches collecting everyones money. How about banning the AKC? I mean they are just as responsible as the owners of these dogs by recognizing the breeds that are deemed dangerous and stand to lose quite a bit of money by not registering a particular breed so they can send you endless crap mail about there new health ins. program or worthless dog fancy magazine that I am sure takes just as much money and time to write up and produce and mail as would stepping up and going to bat for a particular breed. I would think that they should be just as liable in these situations for not responding or challenging these new laws.

Oklahoma passed dangerous dog legislation this past year, after BSL died in committee. A dog will be deemed dangerous if it attacks a person or another animal unprovoked. It requires liability insurance, covered confinement area with adequate shelter from sun and rain and specifies that they are not to be chained. It also states that if the dog was teased or provoked, if the "victim" was trespassing or menacing the owner, the dog is NOT a dangerous dog on that basis.