news
"We need to go ahead and pass this," said City Council President Fred Pitts during a Monday work session at City Hall. "I'll do everything in my power to make sure this gets enforced."
The issue had sparked more than an hour of debate among council members last week and garnered more discussion again Monday - this time about liability insurance.
Among the new rules in the proposed amendment is one requiring dangerous animal owners to obtain at least $100,000 in liability insurance. Council members talked about the logistics of getting insurance and whether it's automatically included in some homeowners' policies.
Last week council members had debated pit bulls' automatic inclusion as dangerous animals. Ward 3 Councilman Jim Newell argued strongly against it, saying it unfairly punishes a breed, as well as responsible pit bull owners. He was backed by Tupelo veterinarian Stephen King.
But others, including Pitts and Ward 5 Councilman Jonny Davis said people who own pit bulls should assume more responsibility because of the breed's strength and reputation.
Chief Operations Officer Darrell Smith said when residents call to complain about dogs, it's almost always about pit bulls. Tupelo-Lee Humane Society Director Debbie Hood offered similar statements.
If it passes, the amendment will take effect 30 days later and will apply to all Tupelo residents.
According to the proposal, owners of pit bulls, as well as those of all pets with a history of aggression, must obtain an $80 permit from the Tupelo-Lee Humane Society and renew it annually. Failure to do so could result in up to $1,000 in fines and up to six months in jail.
Animals are deemed dangerous when, unprovoked, they threaten or attack a person or another pet; if they're owned or trained primarily for fighting; or if they're a pure or mixed-breed pit bull.
Also new in the proposed ordinance are a slew of conditions residents must meet to qualify for a dangerous-pet permit.
emily.lecoz@journalinc.com
I still don't get how this permit makes a dog safer. Will someone explain the purpose of this permit to me? It seems it is only a way for the city to take some of the owners money. I thought this was about safety.
Also, sick of Hood being propped up like she is some kind of expert. She is an expert at killing animals.... I'll give her that. I have been in there numerous times and dealt with her over the years. She is not a dog expert.
Although there are many many people who are great with their dogs and cats (so no need to reply angrily if you are one of these), it is unbelievable how many just let their pets roam the streets, or keep them chained up in a filthy yard all day. Both extremes diminish quality of life in Tupelo. A day does not go by that I do not see a dog that has become road-kill. Let's give the law a chance and see how things work. $100000 of liability coverage is not that costly, and is likely already included as part of most homeowner policies.
A post to an earlier article jumped all over Ms. Hood from the humane society for supporting the ordinance. To manage a humane society in this town is thankless, with the degree of ignorance that exists here. She is on the front lines, doing what very few are willing to do, on a shoestring budget, for very little pay. Why should we doubt when she says that pit bulls are a problem when she sees it every day? If it weren't true, I bet she'd defend these dogs to the hilt.
Enforcement of this ordinance requires strong wording and a lack of loopholes. I am sure the first time someone's Yorkie gets cuffed and hauled off, we'll adjust accordingly. I think lack of resources and enforcement is the much more likely outcome, rather than overzealous enforcement.
To Mr. Pitts:
"You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom."
-William Wallace in Braveheart
The definition of a dangerous dog is also really out of line. My neighbor has a Yorkie that raises Hades when I pull the garbage can to the street once a week. Barks up a storm, bares its teeth, and nips at me. Under this ordinance I can press the issue with the city to make my neighbor get the permit because the dog represents every aspect of the definition and actually crosses the property line between houses and comes into my yard. But this is another example of how Tupelo's City Leaders lead by reaction. These knee jerks really must stop at some point. Because it really appears that the Loons are now running the Asylum.
People will only be punished if a "pit bull" incident happens.
As for me, I would prefer to obey the laws. This one is so onerous as to be almost impossible to follow. This is a bad law.
For someone who is not a vet, I have probably been around as many dogs as anyone. The meanest dog I've ever seen was a lab. Goes to show you a owner who ties a dog to a tree, only interacts with it while feeding it, and shows it no attention or affection can turn one of the kindest breeds into a mean, aggressive dog.
Example comparison can also be made to race. If the majority of crime in Tupelo is commited by white males, would it be fair to change laws to put more restrictions on white males? Hopefully no one believes that. It would be the individual white male's fault, not the entire race/sex. Same with dogs...
But, it is what it is.
Also, most humans have the ability to discern right from wrong, so in your white male crime analogy, the difference is that the white male criminal makes a conscious decision to commit or not commit a crime, whereas a dog is going to instinctively react to a situation, regardless of moral compass (which it does not possess).
Then, figuring in the instinctive animal reaction plus the extreme physical strength of certain breeds plus the statistical likelihoods of injury from those certain types of breeds, it really isn't comparable to the white male criminal example at all (unless one wants to get into eugenics, and that's a whole different can of worms).
I am aware that insurance companies includes ownership of pit bulls, rottwilers, german shepards, dobermans, etc into their statistical calculations. But I don't think that proves my point to be false. They also consider the color of your car for auto rates and I would also disagree with Tupelo charging me for a red car instead of a white car.
Then to your last statement, just to make a opposing point really, lets substitute white males with minority males over 200 lbs. Because of their physical strength, statistical likelihood to prevent crime as compared to entire population, and instinctive human reaction (whatever you meant there) they should pay a fee to live in Tupelo?
Again, just opposing views for fun.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this civilly. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in respectful dialogue.
I think my earlier post meandered around so much that I failed to get to my point, LOL. I agree totally that restrictions shouldn't be put on people based on race, age, ethnicity, etc. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with restrictions being placed on animals, if the restrictions are evidence-based. This is where the human moral compass comes into play, because I don't think people should be described and discriminated against solely by statistics. I think animals are more predictable -- not 100 percent, but closer than people.
On the third hand, I totally get your point that the insurance arguement goes both ways. I have always thought that it is a little unfair that teens are automatically penalized with higher car insurance premiums, regardless of whether they have had an accident. When I was a kid (a very long time ago), I was an insanely careful driver. When I first got my license, I wouldn't even turn on my car radio because I was afraid it might divert my attention from the road. The insurance company didn't care -- the premimums were still higher.
I guess if I were a really responsible pit bull owner, I would feel the same way about this ordinance as many do, so I see your point. In this situation, though, I guess I feel more like an insurance actuary -- the statistics resonate with me.
Again, thanks for the civility.
You can read the ordinance here:
http://www.wtva.com/media/lib/148/1/4/e/14e1da69-5f2a-4b35-af60-4008ad4c8d64/958376_1.DOC
Mr. Pitts, "I'll do everythingmy power to pass this" sound like another pitt-bull to me.