Poul Poulsen EUROWAF www.eurowaf.org
The Alabama Supreme Court / Hunstsville vs Shelia Tack, Kay Nagel/WAF
Pontiac Michigan/ WAF filed a 500,000,00 dollar lawsuit against Pontiac on Decmeber 13th 2001 for passing a breed ban,
the ban was repealed in 2002.
In Ohio ACF is fighting two constitutional challenges against Ohio RC 955:11/22 which declares the American Pit Bull Terrier
Toledo Blade News Story 4/28/03
Seattle PI News Paper " Pit Bulls are not a problem in Seattle" http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/123505_dogs24.html
ACF presents expert testimony in Ohio:
Denver Colorado has a breed ban, read this story !
On January 7th, ACF Vice President Glen Bui along with Russ Vanhouten ( Northglen Police ) were on the Reggie
Rivers Show PBS Ch 12 Denver Colorado debating breed specific legislation.
Auburn Washington February 6 2004
ACF Consultant Jeff Armstrong goes to the media in Chicago Feb 2004
More ACF News Headlines and stories:
Breed Bans do not work: http://www.theadvertiser.com/news/html/7A51601B-477F-4635-8866-F4CA06C9E475.shtml
Denver Post writes about BSL and HB1279:
ACF BOARD OF DIRECTORS JAN COOPER IS ASKED TO ADDRESS BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION:
On April 17th, I was on KTIE 590, talk radio. The program is called "Dog Dish" with hostess Jill 'Kesseler' Miller. Dog Dish covers all topics of interest to the dog
On this past Saturday, April 17th, the main topics were Breed Specific Legislation and PETA.
I was the main call-in guest and helped to explain some of the
BSL that is happening around the country and what the ultimate outcome and goals of such legislation will be.
The recent program on Showtime hosted by Penn and Tellor was also
discussed along with their expose of animal rights activists.
I was interviewed on
the air for almost 45 minutes and hopefully helped to educate many about bad dog laws and the
real threat that is looming in this country.
Jill, a long time personal
friend and fellow dog owner, has asked me or any other ACF members to hopefully join
in for a monthly update on any legislation happening around the country.
You may listen WORLDWIDE on the internet via www.590ktie.com/listen and YOU can also call in with
your opinions by dialing 1-877-590-KTIE anytime Saturdays, 4:00pm to 5:00pm Pacific Time. Please be there for
Jill is using her show
to educate others not only about our dogs or your dogs but all dogs!
hugs to all the canines
ACF CONSULTANT JEFF ARMSTRONG LOBBIES FOR LAWS THAT TARGET IRRESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS, NOT SPECIFIC BREEDS OF DOGS
Dear Mayor Lewis
My name is Jeff Armstrong, I am writing this letter as it has come to my attention that Auburn. May be looking at BSL Breed
specific laws. First off let me give you a brief history of myself. I lobbied in Illinois back in 2002, my state rep, my now
ten year old son Ryan was attacked and almost killed in 2001.
Yes, by a stray dangerous dog, the breed does not matter? At the time breed did matter but after months and months of research,
it's not the dog. It is the irresponsible dog owner that is the problem, all dogs have teeth and all dogs can bite. Yes, the
larger working breeds can do some damage (so can the small dogs pending on the size of the person attacked), does the larger
dog know that? No not at all, does the owner know that the dog has a problem, yes in deed. So now we see attacks all over
this country, and I have been following them for some time. Who's at fault, who teaches the dog? Now the reason I sought out
the help of my state rep is, finally after the use of DNA evidence and about nine months and then some. The dog/owner is proved
with the DNA evidence taken of my son Ryan's coat. This was a very time consuming/court after court date delay-delay-delay
to get a judge to sign a saliva court order.
Mr. Heid I am sure you can relate to that, judges are very cautious as to people's rights and they should be. So I get
my day in court, and wella no state statues exist to charge the irresponsible dog owner with, a few Animal control ordinances,
fines are minimal at best. The states attorney ended up charging the man with a whopping $200.00 fine and six months court
supervision, because Illinois lacked the statutes. The man should have been charged with attempted murder. Well, the penalties
are a bit stronger now.... During my first phone call to my state rep, I mentioned I do not want the new proposed bill to
include any BREED specific clauses. He did agree and also stated he believes it is unconstitutional, which it is. So this
went on I lobbied the Illinois PTA (Parent Teacher Association), Governor Blagojevich just to name a few. I was successful
in my crusade as it has been called, on August 19.2003 the governor signed HB-184 into law now known as the "Ryan Armstrong
Law" as declared by Governor Blagojevich...and it is a fair but very strict law. Now pending on the circumstances of the attack,
the law contains felony charges up to 5 years in prison and up to a $25,000.00 fine. Also the law contains numerous fines
for being an irresponsible dog owner. A huge deterrent in place as we say.... I would ask that Auburn please consider the
"Ryan Armstrong Law" as a model for a fair approach to curbing dangerous/viciuos dog attacks.
Recently the ACF (American Canine Foundation) has asked if I would consult for them, and I accepted. The ACF saw what I
did here Illinois, and agreed with what I had done here in Illinois. I feel what the ACF represents is also of model legislation,
and a fair approach to curbing dog attacks. I thank you for your time gentleman, and please feel free to contact me at any
time. I will put a series of links, so you may read for your self about what I pushed for in Illinois and what the Governor
had to say about the whole ordeal.... Also I will add several states are looking into the "Ryan Armstrong Law," Kansas, Colorado,
Missouri has changed their laws (see the link below). South Carolina PTA is looking into the law. I have been asked to host
a work shop, at the Illinois State PTA convention on May 2.2004. To show anyone wishing to attend we do have a say, in our
government. Calling it my grass root efforts.
Parents Against Irresponsible Dog Owners
Consultant for the ACF (American Canine Foundation) Links Below:
http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=1& RecNum=2226 http://www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=093-0548 http://www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=184&GAID=3& DocTypeID=HB&LegID=411&SessionID=3 http://www.leydentownship.com/info/news.htm http://www.3dink.com/letter.htm http://www.furryfriendsfoundation.com/Truth03/Truth03.htm http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/081903_ns_dangerousdogs.html http://www.illinoisleader.com/search/default.asp?query=hb184 http://www.news-leader.com/_sunday/0928-Willboysma-177166.html http://springfield.news-leader.com/news/today/1005-Mauledkids-184104.html http://springfield.news-leader.com/news/today/1217-Proposeddo-245851.html http://archives.pioneerlocal.com/cgi-bin/ppo-search?qmode=SELECTED& format=ppo-short&paper2=&archive=localnews&year=2002&words=Jeff+Armstrong http://archives.pioneerlocal.com/cgi-bin/ppo-search?config=localnews_2003& qmode=&format=ppo-short&words=Jeff%20Armstrong&page=1 http://archives.pioneerlocal.com/cgi-bin/ppo-story/archives/localnews/2003/we/09-03-03-98654.html http://www.furryfriendsfoundation.com/SpecialEvents/August.htm#jeff http://nwitimes.com/articles/2003/08/20/news/local_illinois/9acd3b81025fba9a86256d88000d93f3.txt http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/broomfield_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2495_2582003,00.html http://illinoislearningpartnership.org/newsarchives.cfm?volume=15 http://www.skipsaviano.com/press/08_august/081903.html http://www.chicagolandtails.com/ http://www.co.cook.il.us/secretary/CommitteePages/Meeting%20Notices%20& %20Agendas/Public%20Health%20Subcommittee/2004/01-21-04.htm
Just recently.....Cook County has adopted the "Ryan Armstrong Law" http://www.cookctyclerk.com/html/012204orddoc.htm
By Dr M Malini DVM as posted on the NCRF Website :
1. Genes do not
cause anything. They dont cause breast cancer; they dont cause aggression; they dont cause blue eyes or floppy ears. Saying
that genes cause problems is a device used by those who a) dont know any better or b) are seeking a quick-and-dirty way to
reduce an incredibly complex concept to a sound-bite for the masses.
2. Aggression per se is not a problem. There
isnt a single living being who doesnt owe his, her, or its existence to the willingness of his, her, or its ancestors to display
aggression. Sperm compete with each other, developing mother and fetus fight over scarce resources, as do developing young
from moment of conception until death possibly years later. Without a willingness to display aggression, none of us would
be here. To me that means that the probability of any DNA associated with aggression in any dog breed being relegated to that
relatively small amount that separates one breed from another is extremely low. The principle of conservation of energy would
seem to guarantee that aggression is simply too fundamental and important a characteristic for survival in all living beings
for that DNA associated with it to be distributed that way. It seems far more likely that all the "recipes" for aggression
reside in that large lump of genetic material we share with at least the bulk of animal life if not all living things.
No agreement exists on the definition of normal aggression, let alone problem aggression. A dog who attacks a serial killer
trying to off his owner is a hero; a dog who attacks the local minister is a killer. Some owners think a dog has a right to
bite a child who kicks the animal; other people believe that no dog should ever bite any human under any circumstances. Some
clients come to me because their dogs bit someone else after biting only family members for years. Other comes for exactly
the opposite reason: the dog is now biting them as well as everyone else.
4. Even if we could agree on a definition
of problem aggression and isolate what will surely be the multiple genes associated with it, the most we could do would be
to attribute that particular behavior to a particular dog in a particular situation. That is, behavior only has meaning in
context. Behaviors may be described as, for example, dominant or subordinate, but the dogs cannot be except in that particular
5. Police, shelter workers, insurance company reps, medical personnel and others who may be involved in
dog bite cases often have little or no knowledge of normal dog behavior. Because of this, they often dont get any kind of
meaningful history because they dont know the right questions to ask. Consequently, in order to say anything meaningful about
the attack, we need a decent history. Without it, the most we can do is guess which is, unfortunately, more often the case
6. In volume VII, No #4 1994 of the interdisciplinary bond journal, Anthrozoos, theres an interesting article
entitled "Dog on a Tightrope: The position of the dog in British society as influenced by press reports (1988 to 1992)" by
Anthony Podberscek. Although theoretically dated as research articles go, the material is a fine example of the old saying
that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Podberscek contends that "the media, public, and government response
to dog attacks is an overreaction to the generally held ideal that the dogs position in society is as a loyal and faithful
companion," a relationship based on what those of us in the bond arena refer to "disneyfication." Because of the ideal arises
from myth rather than recognition of normal canine behavior, the dogs relationship to us is highly unstable. Podberscek also
points out that, even though rottweilers and GSDs were involved in numerous attacks, both of these breeds were eliminated
from Britains Dangerous Dogs Act which only named four breeds: "the type known as Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino,
and Filo Braziliero." The fact that the latter two breeds didnt exist in the UK and there was only one Tosa in the country
at that time makes it clear that this law was not about protecting the public from dog attacks. I agree with Poberscek that
the reason these dogs were targeted and the far, far, more numerous rottwielers and GSDs were not was because the former were
associated with drug dealers whereas the latter were associated with the police work and as guardians of estates and places
of business. Thus the banned dogs became the symbol of what the media and public hoped to do to the drug dealerslock them
up, muzzle them, or put them down.
It seems to me that 10 years later, the parallels between breed bans and ethnic
cleansing and the fact that those viewed as minorities in certain areas may still be over-represented among drug dealers and
dog fighters suggest that this projected symbolism remains alive and well.
7. Relative to the medias penchant for
seeing a pit bull every time they report a dog attack, it reminds me of a phenomenon in psychiatry known as "semantic contagion."
A corollary of this is medicine is"meetingitis." What happens is that, as soon as someone starts writing or talking about
a problem, people start to see it everywhere. Years ago everyone was having nervous breakdowns, then they were all schizophrenics.
Now everyones depressed. My dentist is so susceptible to this that I always make sure not to schedule an appointment with
him for the week after he returns from a meeting because I knew that, regardless what problem I went in with, Ill come out
with the one he heard about that week. I used to work for a veterinarian who did the same with medical diseases and I know
the same thing happens with behavioral problems. In spite of the fact that no agreed on definition for separation anxiety
exists (either), its surprising how many dogs now have this problem. Given the tendency for the human mind to work this way,
it wouldnt surprise me if the same thing happens in the media when it comes to pinning breed labels on dogs. Granted some
unscrupulous journalists undoubtedly will refer to a biting dog as a pit bull or pit bull type even if the animal is obviously
a ShiTzu if it might increase the chance the wire services will pick up the article. However, I think that, aside from whatever
breeds a person happens to know from personal experience, most people recognize relatively few purebreds. Rather they lump
dogs in often highly nonspecific, arbitrary groups such as "yappy little dogs" or "squashed nosed ones." Hence the person
who looked at the Boston terrier and said, "Is that a mini-pit bull?"
8. In keeping with disneyfication, the
human-animal bond is often reduced to a public relations or marketing device. In reality, the nature of the human-canine relationship
plays a critical role in canine aggression. In spite of the fact that owners often express shock when their dog bites them
or someone else, a complete history of the dog and its relationship reveals a scenario that more often than not unfolds like
a Greek tragedy. The question is rarely if these dogs will bite, but merely when, who, and where. Just as its virtually impossible
to change a dogs or humans behavior without changing their physiology and vice versa, its also impossible to change their
relationship without changing the other two. What those who seek to ban breeds and even ultimately the entire domestic canine
species fail to recognize is that humans and dogs co-evolved for thousands of years. We are as physiologically and behaviorally
dependent on them as they are on us. At the same time that we think were training them, theyre training us. At the same time
as theyre enhancing (or undermining) our health, were doing the same to them. Behavioral ecologist Ray Coppinger refers to
dogs as parasites. I would agree that they do function as physical parasites, but we even the ante by emotionally parasitizing
them by projecting our most intimate and sometimes neurotic and totally self-serving symbolism on them, unmindful of the stress
this may create. (Although some dogs are becoming highly skilled emotional parasites, too.)
9. Because of the physiological
and behavioral effects of domestication, the ideal human-canine relationship should mimic that between a mature adult animal
and a pup. The term used for the parental role is leader rather than parent to distinguish this relationship from primate
parenthood. This is necessary because primate parenthood is initially highly reactive, a form of adult response that communicates
subordination in canines. Unfortunately, many people erroneously associate leadership with (reactive) dominance and dominance
with the ability to win fights. The net result is that aggressive dogs often dont recognize human leadership because their
owners dont communicate it. Instead they see their owners as competitors or pups. This relationship then affects how they
related to other people, too. In my experience, owners and others dont communicate leadership to dogs either because they
dont know how or because they dont want to be leaders. (We also happen to live in a society in which the lack of human role
models is rampant with those championed as "leaders" actually being energy-squandering folk who lack sufficient leadership
skill that they have no choice but to dominate by force. The true leader isnt the individual who wins the fight, but rather
the one who possesses so much presence he or she neednt fight at all.)