I think we could all agree that something needs to be done. I'm not sure what... but something.

What constitutes a "fighting breed"? I mean, Pitt Bulls have certainly made a name for themselves lately but I think we should be careful about throwing other breeds into the same category as them.

".....list them on a dangerous dog registry". Is that so someone can look at the registry and know which houses not to walk by? "......limiting owners to one pit bull per household". Is that to ensure the people will only be attacked by one dog at a time? BAN THEM!!! And after that, ENFORCE THE BAN!!

Ban pit bulls, enforce the ban. Much better than putting restrictions on owners who will ignore the laws.

Hanley said "Some possible restrictions could be fence height and enclosure rules those owners would need to make sure were in place on their property."

Good idea. Banning the breed is not. We do not have the resources to enforce such laws.

Now banning certain owners from owning a dangerous dog. There can be an exam given and a license or something along those lines.

Is Hanley up for re-election?

If the Auburn City Council wants to avoid costly litigation, they would be well advised to check state law before moving forward. It is a violation of California state law for a city or county to ban a dog breed, declare a dog breed to be dangerous or vicious, require breed-specific restrictions such as fencing or muzzles, create number limits specific to a breed, or anything else they seem to be contemplating. The Auburn city government will be sued and they will lose the lawsuit if they go forward with these plans.

Breed Specific Legislation has never worked anywhere. It is a distraction from taking measures that actually work. Auburn would be better off contacting a group like BadRap (Bay Area Dog Owners Responsible About Pit Bulls) and see what they recommend. BadRap has accomplished fantastic things that have made communities safer.

Limit the amount of dogs and fighting breed....

AndreaR, you claim that the City cannot ban pitbulls and that it would somehow be illegal. Please provide us with documentation to back up your claim. If what you write is true, then the City should move forward to enact restrictions on ownership of pitbulls and other dangerous dogs. Otherwise, ban the dogs. What the City also needs to do is vigorously enforce the laws already established, including dogs at large and Dogs off of leashes. If dog owners know that they will get a stiff fine for even their first violation if their dog is caught running around off leash, then they just may realize that yes, they too have to abide by our laws. No more free passes for irresponsible dog owners who can't or refuse to take control of their dogs and prevent them from escaping the owner's property. Time for ALL dog owners to face the music and be held responsible for the actions of their pets.

I believe the City Council cut and is not planning to fill the Animal Control Officer position assigned to Auburn Police Department. I believe there was litigation when the employee was released. Imagine that? Could the attack have been prevented if the City had a full time Animal Control Officer on at the time? We will never know. It would be nice to know what the City Council's priorities are. There are budget problems but basic services and public safety should be and stay at the top of the priority list. Not streetscape and hiring consultants to tell us what we already know.

Good story. Now what about the shots fired story in Rocklin?

Did Jeannette Klebofski not understand that the dogs are not still there? Shes afraid to use that parking lot because the dogs might be there? Is she aware of how many other terrible things have happened in that parking lot? Thugs from that bus stop beating people up? I just dont understand why people love to be afraid about things. She has a batter chance of being hit in a car accident on the WAY to that parking lot than actually being attacked by dogs. The dogs are no longer there and are in custody with APD, yet this woman wants to make herself the victim in this story and project the notion that she has been victimized by her inability to park when the incident occurred. Its also nice to see that AJ has now deemed the injuries to the young man to be "serious injuries" when it previously stated that they were minor injuries and the young man was able to go home the very same day. There is no question that this was an unprovoked attack and something needs to be done, but lets just make sure that we get the facts straight and not sensationalize every facet of this story. He got stitches and was definitely hurt in the altercation, but I dont think that the injuries were ever labeled as "serious" until recently. Serious would be broken bones and something near to death. Just saying, dont flame me for this post. Get the facts straight, and then we can make reasonable decisions regarding these dogs and the future of their breed in this city. Reasonable enough, right?

Tackleberry, see

CALIFORNIA FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL CODE

Section 31683

The owner of any dog that actual attacks a person should be heavily fined. The animal(s) should be put down immediately. If you are a dog owner and the law is clear, I'd venture to guess the animal won't be given the opportunity to attack.

AndreaR

.From my reading SB 861 amended older legislation to specifically allow municipalities to create breed specific ordinances. San Francisco and several other California cities have them in place now.

From the bill analysis:

Senate Bill 861 allows cities and counties to enact

breed-specific ordinances only for mandatory spay or neuter

programs and breeding requirements, provided that the local

ordinances do not declare specific dog breeds or mixed dog

breeds to be potentially dangerous or vicious.

If a city or county adopts such an ordinance, SB 861

requires local officials to measure the programs' effects

on dog bites. Local statistical information must include

the bite's severity, the dog's breed, whether the dog was

altered, and whether the breed was subject to the local

ordinance. Local officials must submit their statistics

quarterly to the State Public Health Veterinarian.

The bill makes legislative findings and declarations in

support of its provisions.

JJMon, your hitting the ganga. It what reality are the injuries not serious? The dogs were not playing with JoJo. Put down that blunt Mon.

CA-4_Voter, SB 861 got incorporated into California Code as Health and Safety Code Section 122331. It narrowly allows for breed specific spay/neuter and breeding restrictions ONLY. No other breed specific legislation is allowed. California Code is very clear that breed bans and the various restrictions that the Auburn City County is considering per the news article would violate state law.

ChuxxR, Fence height and enclosure rules that target specific dog breeds are not allowed because they would violate California state law.

Wasn't the escape path of these dogs under the fence?

I'm sure a minimum fence height would also be essential, but if your animal digs underneath it really doesn't matter how "tall" you build it.

I think it's good that Hanley is putting this idea forward. He's not saying he's got all the answers, but clearly the city of Auburn needs to look for some.

If you can't ban specific breeds, then a weight limit would work. Maybe 70 pounds, no more than one dog, and all dogs must be spayed or neutered. Unless you have a valuable show dog, (which is easy enough to prove) there is no reason not to alter your dog. Having four pit bulls who were not neutered in a small yard in Auburn is crazy. No wonder they had a pack mentality.

Then have a zero tolerance policy and ENFORCE it! If a dog of any kind bites someone without provocation and causes injury, they should be put down immediately. I love dogs and I know this will bring out all the "love-my-dog-more-than-people" crowd, but a dog that attacks for no reason is dangerous.

I'll post it again: The owner of any dog that actual attacks a person should be heavily fined. The animal(s) should be put down immediately. If you are a dog owner and the law is clear, I'd venture to guess the animal won't be given the opportunity to attack.

We already have leash laws as well as licensing requirements. Trying to create bred specific laws will be impossible to enforce as a "pitbull" is not a true bred. "The term "pit bull" has no single, solid, scientific definition. What you consider a "pit bull" is not likely to be identical to the concept retained by any other person." Happy Pit Bull

It is the owner not the dog that needs to be licensed.

Specifying a breed isn't likely to work because owners will claim the city must "prove" a given dog is a pitbull, rottweiler, etc; it's expensive and unworkable

From the discussion, it's clear that the best way to protect the public is to strictly and simply limit the number of dogs owned within the Auburn municipal boundary at two per house or apartment, in addition to strict fencing, leash, inoculation, spaying, high dollar licensing, and barking/howling enforcement. This would likely require hiring at least one animal control officer.

Breeding and raising dogs for sale within the City of Auburn needs to be stopped. It's an unfair and deleterious imposition on residential-zoned neighborhoods to endure houses where dog breeding businesses owning packs of four, six, eight, ten or more adult dogs-- of any breed-- that not only have the potential to escape and attack humans but also harbor flies, ticks, and fleas, in addition to barking and howling at every moment the owner is away from home.

Let's make it easy, limit the number of all types of dogs owned by any household at two.

All of you who support a ban on dogs should also think about banning child offenders from city limits they need to be handled ASAP but no you morons are out to free the world from dogs.

Are you humans?

I'm glad Mr. Hanley is proposing this. I would support a one-per-household limit. Pitbulls aren't the only dog that can be vicious, and not all pitbulls are vicious, but they do have a genetic predisposition that ups the possibility that they may "snap" -- and the "pack mentality" they adopt when there are 2 or more of them makes it that much more likely that someone will get hurt. Since someone already HAS been hurt, seriously, something needs to be done. A limit is a reasonable step in the right direction.

GreenBeans, a 70 pound weight limit is not justifiable. There is no data to support such a draconian limit. Also, the scientific research shows that spaying and neutering do not reduce aggression. There are reasons not to alter a dog besides "a valuable show dog"... what elitist nonsense. The American Veterinary Medical Association opposes mandatory spay-neuter.

There is no evidence that multidog households have more problems with their dogs than single dog households.

Am I missing something? If you can be breed specific with spay and neuter ordinances, can't you seriously lower the numbers of a specific breed?

Kevin Hanley's proposed ordinance raises the same old question. How much freedom are we willing to give up to make our community a safer place to live in? How much regulation are we willing to tolerate to try and stop irresponsible people from presenting unreasonable risks of harm to the rest of us?

Don't forget aside from the dog issue the city is set to impose a last best and final offer to cut fire department pay. It's obvious their priorities are not on public safety when they are cutting services. A fire in the canyon Below Auburn would destroy half the city but at least we won't get attacked by any pitbulls. If you care about this issue and want the city to change their priorities come to the city council meeting tonight. 5:30 Auburn City Hall.

lantbarney, an additional question this raises is how many good people and good dogs are we willing to hurt to impose limits that are not scientifically justified and for which there isn't a shred of evidence that they actually do any good? Some of the people on this forum are such strong advocates for stripping away our freedoms that I have to wonder if they live in the United States of America or Communist China. Scary stuff.

My Goodness! Doggy Discrimination!

St. Bernard dogs are hailed for their rescue history (fiction and factual) yet it was a St. Bernard who bit me when I was a child. Should they be banned? Some of the nastiest dogs I have known are spaniels, yet I knew one who was the politest dog I ever met…should they be banned because I think the majority are nasty?

Dogs are social animals who, just like children, learn from their environment and react in kind. Are we going to start banning all dogs who misbehave…what about children who misbehave too?

You may think a dog, is just a dog, but they are individuals just like anyone else. You cannot just assume that because they are a specific breed that they will behave in a specific way. There may be tendencies…but then again, some of those same tendencies can be explained by environmental influences, not just genetics.

Banning will not solve the problem. It is a violation of human rights, and it is equivalent to doggy racism. What about finding a positive solution that encourages education and safety and respect? Any positive ideas out there?

Fourgen:

You wrote:

“The owner of any dog that actual attacks a person should be heavily fined. The animal(s) should be put down immediately.”

What of these scenarios:

A dog-bite victim was:

* An intruder and the dog was protecting its home and family?

* Someone who was tormenting the dog?

* Someone who accidently hurt the dog and the dog reacted naturally to painful stimuli?

Should these dogs be put down?

AndreaR, Yes I know there are reasons not to alter a dog. Many people who hunt say that having their dog neutered hinders his ability. I don't know about that from first hand experiece, just what I've heard. I also think many men have an automatic "cringe response" in regards to neutering their dog.

I have had two large dogs whose behavior changed for the better after being neutered. One was a 175# Rottweiler, and the other one was a Great Dane-Akita mix. Both became better dogs for our family afterward, less aggressive, and more interested in his "people" than in sniffing after the female in heat down the road. We live in the country on acreage, and this discussion is about within the city limits of Auburn. I would not be so cruel to keep a huge dog in a little yard in the city.

I also think the American Veternarian Medical Association probably has its own agenda regarding a mandatory spay/neuter.

For a family pet, i see no reason not to have your dog altered. There are already too many unwanted dogs out there, and if you take a trip to the animal shelter you will see that many of them are pit bulls or pit mixes.

Perhaps we should consult with Dr. Mark Starr, of Placer County Health and Human Services. He's a vetrinarian and probably has more experience with animal than humans. Oh wait........ he's in charge of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES in placer County. Why do we, as residents of Placer county have a vet in charge of communicable diseases?

GreenBeans: My parents Rott weights twice your idiotic proposal of 70lbs. His disposition is better than almost every dog I have ever encountered. He lets our neighbors dog who is a 1/3 his size boss him around (he's has also never been in a dog fight). Stupid is as stupid does.

Also none of the 3 males Rotts I have had growing up were ever neutered. The first was police trained and we got him when I was two years old. I was a hyper two year old but never once did my parents worry about me with him. In fact when I would run away into the woods he would find me for my parents (or he would come along lol). Obviously we know a thing or two about raising an "aggressive" breed.

yahooligan I thought Dr. Burton was in charge of Health and Human Services?

GreenBeans, your two dogs might have improved after they were neutered but research studies that looked at thousands of dogs did not show that result. In fact, the risk of aggression was higher in the population of spayed and neutered dogs than in the population of intact dogs. I am not advocating that people should keep their dogs intact. I am simply saying that surgery must be an individual choice made by a dog owner in consultation with his or her veterinarian. You got to make that choice for your dogs, and I'll defend your choice. Others should be able to make their own choices for their own dogs.

If the American Veterinary Medical Association was promoting their own agenda they would be advocating for mandatory spay-neuter laws, after all that would give veterinarians more business. In fact the AVMA opposes mandatory spay/neuter laws. The AVMA's position places what is best for the patient above what is best for the veterinarian, which is as it should be for ethical medical professionals.

Read the article on the front page of the journal. Perhaps Burton is a figurehead. The vet is the mouthpiece

ChristinaO asks "What about finding a positive solution that encourages education and safety and respect? Any positive ideas out there?". Good question.

For starters, we need to stop jumping on the bandwagon of knee jerk "solutions" that have been tried and failed everywhere they have been implemented. Breed specific legislation doesn't work. Draconian restrictions on the number of dogs per household don't work. Mandatory spay-neuter doesn't work. All of these things fail to do any good, and in some cases they backfire. For sure they end up hurting good people and good dogs.

Next, we need to find out what programs do work. Calgary Canada is a fast growing major city that has seen the number of aggressive dog incidents decrease by over 80% even while the city's population doubled. They looked at the data and determined that there is no "problem breed" despite the inflammatory news media reporting that distorts the truth. So they do not have breed specific legislation. They looked at the data and determined that multidog homes have no greater tendency to have problems with Animal Control than single dog homes. So Calgary has no limits on the number of dogs a person can own. They looked at the facts where mandatory spay-neuter laws have been implemented and found these law don't accomplish anything positive. So Calgary doesn't have MSN. What Calgary has is a comprehensive responsible dog ownership program that combines education, PR, and strict enforcement.

Why not let law biding people protect themselves with a concealed weapon. You guys are so quick to take rights away. Ban a dog.....next you will be banning football because people get hurt playing it. You guys are absurd.

Its beginning to look like the right way to go is to apply all ordinances to the pet owner. I am dubious that a city could come up with something breed specific that works anyway. If we wiped out a specific breed that society determines dangerous the scum that fight animals would just breed something new for the job. Maybe a conditional pet owners license. If your dog bites someone regardless of breed you lose you license to own any pets within the jurisdiction. If education is supposed to be a plus then make mandatory training a condition to obtain the permit. The fines should also hit the wrong type of owners hard enough that it is clearly in best interest to reduce their risk by taking the appropriate precautions.

It seems that the state may have the local governments hands tied and people feel strongly about it the best move maybe to utilize the referendum process. What I am sure of is that I am tired of reading about one persons property attacking another persons family which is a completely unacceptable situation.

How about we ban Kevin Hanley and his children from Placer County!!!! Let's throw Jeannette Klebofski, her children and grandchildren into this ban too. As a RESPONSIBLE Pit Bull owner, this man disgusts me....along with the rest of you who support banning a wonderful breed. Statistics show that there are at least a half a dozen other breeds that have a higher incidence of biting than Pit Bulls. The vicious Chihuahua is one of them. Stop purposing laws based purely on emotion and press clippings. Get yourself re-elected by doing something truely worthwhile.

I am not a resident but have always enjoyed my visits to your community. I come up for dog shows and Splash dogs events, I have American Staffordshire Terriers. They are a bully breed, descended from pit bulls. My young dog is also my service dog, has passed the CGC, and the American TT. Punishing irresponsible owners and fining them for having their dogs running loose, is a good thing. Banning a breed for the deeds of the few is just wrong. If this should pass I will no longer be a patron of the shops and hotels in your fare city and will encourage other dog show friends to find other dog friendly accommodations. I will miss the Monkey Cat Restaurant in particular they have always been my choice place to eat, with their dog friendly patio.

what in the world is wrong with you people.the city officials have nothing better to worry about than finding one more thing to fear to demonize?our police need one more duty?bull terriers have been in our town long before you,long before all you weak kneed citiots fled the bay and decided to impose some politicly correct set of rules on we who have built and maintained this beautiful area,because we need your help to "get auburn right".if a ban of any sort comes out of city hall it should be to eliminate all dogs from our town.any dog has the ability to mame and kill.german shepards have the highest people bite record of all.more damage has been done by them than any other large breed dog.most dog bites come from small breeds.the problem goes much deeper.it's more about fear.our government has found out that if we are scared we will bend over to any stupid rule,law mandate they impose.so my point is are you that scared?are you a coward?of course not.so lets move on with important issues,our health,our children and thier education,maintaining the auburn we love and preserving it for our children and all those wonderful folks,yet to come,who will love this little town as it is,both beautiful and flawed.we already have laws on the books to handle dog attacks and animal abuse,employ them.

I honestly can't believe the ignorance that seeps out of people sometimes. I am a RESPONSIBLE OWNER of a pitbull.

jixdog...I would amend that by saying "gushes"...not seeps

Oh, and I forgot to add that Hanley should pound sand

And still the city is cutting Fire and Police. where is the city priorities?

Okay, calm down, everyone. City councilman Hanley is doing his job--looking out for the city. He is asking for discussion and looking for solutions.

This problem arose because four dogs owned by an irresponsible, negligent dog owner caused serious injury in an unprovoked attack on an innocent young man who was just going about his business. (On his way to dinner at a local Auburn restaurant!) I'm happy that he was young and agile enough to escape fatal injuries, with help from the Good Samaritans. Had it been a child or elderly person, I'm afraid the outcome would have been horrendous and the owner of the dogs would be facing charges of negligent homocide. Had Coverston done the right and responsible thing and had his dogs put down immediately we would not be here talking about it. It would have been a done deal.

That said, this forum is for DISCUSSION! Calling people names--stupid, idiot, moron, etc. is not productive and only shows your limitation in expressing yourself. I appreciate people who can agree to disagree, or disagree in a respectful and reasonable manner, preferably with something to back up their opinion.

This is not about bad pit bulls (or any other breed) vs. good pit bulls, it's about irresponsible people who have more dogs than they can handle and thereby cause endangerment to others.

The City Council voted tonight 5-0 to cut fire department pay. In this same meeting they voted to approve $13100 for a consultant for the East Hanger Project. The Auburn Fire Department is among the lowest payed in Placer County and the highest in commitment to their citizens. It is a smack in the face to them for the city to force them to take cuts while still spending like drunken sailors. (streetscape, sewer upgrade, street overlays, and that stupid sign on the freeway that no one sees) how do they justify cutting pay and services but still spending money on stuff that is basically fluff.

It would do the city little good to spend all that money on Streetscape, etc. to bring in tourists, and then have some little old lady who is here for the antique shops and a nice luncheon to be mauled by a pack of dogs.

This is all about liability.

And I agree, stumpbranch--no way should firefighters pay be cut. Ever. They are heros.

Thank you but it happend already at the city council meeting tonight. We need to get some citizens to contact the city council and say this is wrong. These firefighters go through a lot to protect and serve the citizens of Auburn. The leave home sometimes for weeks, leaving their family and loved ones all for very little pay already. It's just not right.

Greenbeans: I agree, it's about irresponsible dog owners. But many other responsible and loving dog owners (dogs... as in family member) will also be affected if some of these people have their way. I admit, I'm clueless as to an approriate solution, but lets be very careful in the path we chose to take. Limiting the number of dogs or outlawing certain breeds is not the answer. Maybe it's the dog owner that should be licensed after determined to be responsible.

ChistinaO - The owner of any dog that actual attacks a person should be heavily fined.

Yes, if the dog or dogs are loose and are not within a confined area.

* An intruder and the dog was protecting its home and family?

This is not covered under attack. Attack means unprovoked NOT within a residence or confined to a specific area.

* Someone who was tormenting the dog? If the tormentor is in the residence or the dogs confined area, he the tormentor is responsible for his actions.

* Someone who accidently hurt the dog and the dog reacted naturally to painful stimuli? This is not considered attack, this is a dog bite, I had one of those when I was a kid, I felt sorry for the dog as I accidentally stepped on his tail.

Common Sense died maybe we can bring it back, this would help ChristinsO understand the meaning of attack.

Less government regulations, more personal responsibility. Enforce the laws we already have in place

To make a safer community - BAN future agressive dog breeds living in the city of Auburn. If a dog is not licenced by 12/31/09 - they would fall into FUTURE and not be allowed to live in Auburn. Restrictions should be placed on the owners including fence height, gates, concrete along fence line so the cannot dig out, and a certificate of coverage from their home ownership/rental insurance company.

ALL of the agressive breeds should be neutered - the male hormones causes problems including aggressive behavior. Aggressive dogs should not allowed in public parks, neighborhoods and shopping areas. They can easily cause aggressive situation where families are exposed.

I have been bitten/attacked by a "sweetest" pitbull mix and had to go to an urgent care center to get stitched.

Thank YOU Kevin for taking on a dangerous situation.

The bit bull saga is being considered by an official, Kevin Hanley, this is a good start. Perhaps they can come up with an answer that will be acceptable to most. I think keeping the dogs in jail this long is inhumane and something should be done, quickly.

Has anyone looked at whether the owner was breeding them for fighting? If not, why not? If so, then ship the dogs, and the owner off to somewhere where they can do their thing. Our dog bit a paper boy in Okinawa when we lived there. The military police took him and the dog became an excellent police dog. Perhaps the police should look into using these kind of dogs. Success in nabbing victims might take a sudden rise. C smith

Lots of info on aggressive breeds - www.dogsbite.org

In 3 years (2006-2008) pit bull type dogs killed 52 americans and accounted for 59% of all fatal attackes. - add in rottweilers - 73%.

OVER 250 US cities have adopted dog legislation that targets specif breeds due to the unique dangers posed by them. The focal point is pit bulls.

WHAT MAKES A DOG DANGEROUS - Biters are 6 times more likely to be male and 2.6 times as likely to be intact than neutered and nearly 3 times as likely to be chained. Unsuitable as a housedogs - owners are more likely to leave them chained outside. The combination of a male, intact, chanined pit bull or rottweiler greatly amplified the danger it poses to the community. PIT BULLS when challenged will not retreat.

San Francisco has a PIT BULL ORDINANCE that includes mandatory spaying and neutering. California cities with Manadatory sterilization for pit bulls and rottweilers - Lancaster - also Manteca.

Lets not delay putting together ordinances and enforcing them this year! Don't let another child/person be injured or killed. This issue is bad for Auburn businesses.

The City of Auburn and its Council members better read California State Law before they start trying to pass regulations that are not even legal for them to pass. There is no point in even having a discussion about banning pit bulls or listing them as dangerous or having fence heights exclusively for them since it is not legal to do sol in the state of California. The only breed-specific laws local jurisdictions can pass are with regard to breeding restrictions and sterilization (spay-neuter) regulations.

Fourgen, if Common Sense reigned, there would likely be no 'need' for this discussion and people would not likely be so ready to support ordinances or try to restrict the rights of others due to emotional reflexive outburst. To declare a need for new laws based on an incident without thinking of the bigger picture and interrelationships and potential effects from the cause is short sided.

CO, did you miss my point on what the difference between attack and normal reaction by any pooch? The law should protect the public from harm due to presumed negligence by the owner or occupant of a residence, this is one reason I carry homeowners insurance. If you want to own a dog that you know is "mean" and "nasty" or has a tendency that is anti-social you have to protect yourself from litigation and the public from harm. Law that provides this is against the owner of the dog, not what breed the dog happens to be. Many insurance companies will cancel you policy if you have a dog bite claim.

Common Sense is dead!

ChristinaO, you are a person of reason and grace. Glad to see you;)

That being said, four or more dogs are considered a kennel. Maybe we need measures that register kennels and set forth guidelines like dog runs, fencing requirements and kennel and owner regulations that prove the ability to own and maintain a kennel. A test and license?

Greg did I make it?

Do we throw all African Americans in jail, just because the majority of the population in prison is African American? Do we mark all Muslims as Enemy Combatants, because muslims committed 9/11? No...we don't. How do you enforce banning a breed? Do we have German SS knock on the door and smell for dog? You are all missing the point....In the US we punish based on the CRIME....not what color your skin or type of fur. Dogs, cats, horses...whatever...should be taken care of, based on their ACTIONS....not by stereotyping. Haven't we learned ANYTHING in last 100 years? People who comment about banning a "breed" clearly are ignorant, and do not know anything about the breed. They are loyal, loving, and extremely obedient. Yes...I own a pitbull. She cares about 3 things...Petting, Car rides and walks. She ignores dogs....won't leave my sight. I guarantee my dog will out behave any dog out there...except perhaps another pitbull. You are more likely (and I have) to get bit by a chihuahua, or a golden retriever than you are a pit bull. The dog is raised and behaves exactly how the owner trains it. I live outside the city limits, so this proposed ordinance doesn't matter to me....but what I can't stand is ignorance and stereotyping. Do you realize that only 2 out of 50+ dogs of Michael Vick were not adopted out? Get EDUCATED. In the meantime.when you see me and my dog walking at the Confluence...be sure to pet her...because she'll be expecting it.

AuburnATV: I would love to do just that, how will I know you? I probably already do as I consider almost all dogs and dog owners that I meet on the trail to be friendly and very approachable. It's the dog haters that scare me. I have personally known and/or owned several large breed dogs that are considered by some to be frightening...ridiculous. Maybe you should remain anomynous, The haters are everywhere!

JAB1PC

I take it ChuxxR treats all people that he disagrees with the same way he treated me, with ad hominem attacks and moronic stereotypes. If you were the logical person that you claim to be, you would have more to reply to my well thought out argument with than simply a "put down the blunt" comment. I take it my name some how confuses you and boggles your narrow mind. You circumvent actual debate and confronting facts with some nonsensical jabber and character attacks. Thats probably why your opinion is not taken seriously. Maybe if I changed my name to a girls name, you would try to come on to me like you did ChristinaO ;) Give me an actual rebuttal next time and save yourself the humiliation of being "that guy"

Lovingauburn: Everyone here is more likely to die in a car crash tomorrow than a Pitt Bill attack. Let's all stop driving vehicles to abate the risk. 1300 people will die from falling down stairs this year. Let's have an ordinance on how we walk down stairs. 50 people will die from lightening. Let's fight the weather.

A better solution is to hold ourselves accountable and realize that our pets are animals and that is a risk in its self. The owner is responsible and the sooner everyone learns that the sooner the 50 deaths a year from dogs will decrease. 300 Million Americans and 50 deaths. Your likelihood of dying is about .0000000167%. This is definitely a top priority in "Don't let another child/person be injured or killed"

Also don't talk about Rott's. You know nothing about their demeanor and they are not the issue at hand.

And on the same note as AuburnATV if you see my parents 140lb MALE Rott be wary of petting him because he might wag his bottom, slobber your hand and put his paw on your hand. SCARY!

So the little girl that was killed by a rott in the Auburn Area in the last 15 years was OK since it was only about .0000000167%??

Lovingauburn: Of course not, but the perfect solution to this problem does not exist, to this or any problem for that matter. You cannot have .00000000000%. It simply isn't achievable. Can't we be sensible? The owner of the dogs in question was truly negligent. I believe he admits it. Does he deserve to get the dogs back? I doubt it, but the investigation continues and I applaud that. Does he deserve fines etc.? Again, investigation continues and again I applaud that. Do we need more rules and regulations? Absolutely not!!!

skimammoth: I would be pleased to meet your parents 140lb Rott. As a side note, today I spent several hours involved in the rescue and return of a pair dogs....a Newf, who had to tip in at 150, and a gregarious Lab. I'm fairly sure the haters wouldn't have given these dogs the time of day...or they would have run away frightened.

JAB1PC

JJMon, Ouch! The blunt comment does have to do with your name. It was a joke for your assinine comment about the nature of the injuries. On 10/25/09 at 02:19 PM, JamminJahMon wrote: "Serious would be broken bones and something near to death."

This was my response: ..."In what reality are the injuries not serious?" The dogs were not playing with JoJo." I edited the stereo typical parts out. Now you're playing the victim. You never did answer my question.

CristinaO, Sorry if I was out of line, but I stick by my comments.

This site has been a blessing!

I was about to move my family to Auburn, buy a home and start a business but have learned from this article that Auburn is a hick town made up of ignorant hicks who are incapable of making intelligent & rational decisions. I will not risk my family's well being by moving to such a dangerous place. Pit Bulls are safer than Golden Retrievers and you should know that. What's next, the blacks and the Jews?

You should all be ashamed of yourselves!

lovingauburn: Ya that's what I said genius. Don't put words in my mouth.

Insurance companies love people like you because you are so risk averse. How about all the people killed in the area by drunk drivers in the last 15 years, children included? Wake up and smell the roses. There are many unfortunate and untimely events in the world. Sometimes it is the hand we are dealt. I hate it as much as anyone else but jumping to rash conclusions won't solve anything.

It is absurd that people actually want to pass an ordinance against specific dog breeds. Why punish the innocent animals and not the ignorant owners? EDUCATE people about the responsibilities of owning animals! Pit Bulls are wonderful dogs that have a horrible reputation because of their HORRIBLE owners. Instead of breed specific laws, focus on the fact that we don’t have strict penalties for irresponsible animal owners. The ASPCA website has stated the following statistics regarding dog attacks:

In the aforementioned study, the CDC noted that many other factors beyond breed may affect a dog’s tendency toward aggression—things such as heredity, sex, early experience, reproductive status, socialization and training. These last two concerns are well-founded, given that:

• More than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs.

• An unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than is a neutered dog.

• A chained or tethered dog is 2.8 times more likely to bite than a dog who is not chained or tethered.

• 97 percent of dogs involved in fatal dog attacks in 2006 were not spayed/neutered:

• 78 percent were maintained not as pets, but rather for guarding, image enhancement, fighting or breeding.

• 84 percent were maintained by reckless owners—these dogs were abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or contained, or allowed to interact with children unsupervised.

Healthy and Safety Code 122331. (a) Cities and counties may enact dog breed-specific ordinances pertaining only to mandatory spay or neuter programs and breeding requirements, provided that no specific dog breed, or mixed dog breed, shall be declared potentially dangerous or vicious under those ordinances.

ChuxxR, Thank you; however, I don't recall you stepping out of line. Enjoy your week!