Today we released our new partner site PitBull-Directory.info

While we are just starting out it is currently fairly small. With in due time we plan to make it the best Pit Bull Link Directory on the internet. We will strive to bring you the best Pit Bull related websites.

Any one can add a link for free.

Feel free to suggest a new category if you feel we have left one out.

Do you have a website or know of a website that fits into one of our current category's?
Please submit it here: http://www.pitbull-directory.info/add.php

We hope every one will help this become the number one stop to find what you need regarding Pit Bulls.

Visit us here: http://www.pitbull-directory.info

Kennett boy attacked by pit bull
Posted: Jun 18, 2010 6:57 PM EDT
Updated: Jun 18, 2010 7:19 PM EDT

KENNETT, MO (KFVS) - The city of Kennett just passed an ordinance banning anyone in town from owning pit bulls.

However, that didn't stop a pit bull attack on an eight-year-old boy in town on Tuesday.

Cody Collins is doing well now after suffering puncture wounds to his right ear and both of his legs. He was bit several times before fighting the dog off.

His mother says he has trouble sleeping because he is still sore from Tuesday's attack, and she is shocked a pit bull got out in a town where that breed isn't allowed.

Crystal Collins said her son Cody went to ride bikes with a friend across town and hadn't been gone more than 15 minutes when she got the call that he had been attacked by a pit bull in Darnell's Trailer Park off of EE Highway.

"They really didn't know bad the bites were, but the ambulance was on it's way to pick him up," she said.

Crystal says the bites were bad. One to his right ear that went all the way through along with puncture wounds to both legs.

Cody says the experience was terrifying.

"I ran into the house and it was still following me, but luckily I got into the house," he said.

Crystal says the dog left more lasting damage than the scars from the bites.

She said Cody is more scared of dogs, and fears this attack will stay with him the rest of his life.

Kennett Police say the dog was so aggressive, that when paramedics arrived at the scene, the dog tried to attack them.

The dog owner now faces up to a $500 fine and up to nine days in jail.

Crystal says it's a stiff penalty, but it still doesn't go far enough.

"Who's going to be next? What if it had been a little kid, smaller than him? It could have killed him," she said.

The dog owner is scheduled to appear in court next Wednesday.

The dog is currently being held at a local vets office and will stay there for the next ten to fourteen days before being euthanized or moved out of the city.

http://www.kfvs12.com/global/story.asp?s=12674980

Northside resident Richard Tucker continued his quest to hold accountable the owner and animals responsible for the death of a family pet. Tucker's pet Yorkie was mauled to death by pit bulls April 13. He has regularly attended council meetings to inquire about the status of a police investigation of the death and to request a change in the city's vicious dog ordinance.

"One dog has been put down," Tucker said, "but no action has been taken against the owner and the second dog (allegedly involved in the mauling) is running free."

Tucker said he was out of line and apologized for an emotional outburst at a previous council discussion of the issue.

"You say there's nothing else that can be done by city ordinance, but as I read it - a whole lot more can be done," he said. "The mayor and the city police are not living up to their responsibilities to protect citizens."

Police Chief Mike Burk said he is willing to discuss the investigation in person with Tucker, but a public meeting is not the place to go over the details of a criminal investigation.

Mayor Steve Croyle said the investigation led to dead end as the result of a lack of corroboration.

"There were impediments to the investigation caused by you and your refusal to cooperate with due process," Croyle told Tucker. "The city has done what the ordinance requires us to do."

Tucker said he doesn't believe the city adhered to its ordinance. He requested and was provided a police department complaint form.

http://www.winchesternewsgazette.com...2574436507.txt

June 23, 2010 - With concerns about animal attacks in the lakes area, there's been some recent debate in some municipalities on how to regulate so-called dangerous animals, especially pit bulls and/or other dogs. Every west Oakland community takes a slightly different tack when dealing with dangerous animals. Some are proactive, not waiting for an incident to happen before enacting an ordinance. Others choose to wait until something happens to spur regulation in their municipality. Some local ordinances ban specific breeds of animals, and others are generic.

Back in January, the White Lake Township Board discussed the need to enact a dangerous animal ordinance, eventually deciding not to pursue one.

In March of 2009, the Wolverine Lake Village Council adopted a dangerous animal ordinance.

Waterford Township's dangerous animal ordinance specifically prohibits pit bulls.

Nancy Gunnigle, communications manager for The Michigan Humane Society (MHS), said the MHS is opposed to breed bans. She said that such bans are usually directed at breeds commonly exploited for dog fighting or guarding illegal practices, and that because virtually any breed can be purposely bred and trained to promote vicious fighting temperaments, breed bans are not an effective solution to improve public safety.

The Michigan Legislature has long had a dangerous animals statue in place. Known as Act 426 of 1988, the law defines a dangerous animal as "a dog or other animal that bites or attacks a person, or a dog that bites or attacks and causes serious injury or death to another dog while the other dog is on the property or under the control of its owner."

The law specifies that the dangerous animal definition doesn't apply to an animal that bites or attacks a person who is knowingly trespassing on the owner's property, an animal that bites or attacks a person who provokes or torments it, or an animal that is responding in a manner that an ordinary and reasonable person would conclude was designed to protect a person if that person is engaged in a lawful activity or is the subject of an assault.

The state's dangerous animal statute doesn't apply to livestock, which is defined as animals used for human food and fiber, or animals used for service to human beings.

The law states that upon a sworn complaint that an animal is dangerous and has caused serious injury or death to a person or a dog, the owner would be summoned to appear in court and make a case as to why the animal shouldn't be destroyed. Under such circumstances, the dog in question would have to be sent to a proper animal control authority, an incorporated humane society, a licensed veterinarian or a boarding kennel to be held for observation and/or treatment until a hearing is held and a decision is made regarding the dog.

After a hearing, a district court magistrate or judge can order to have the dog destroyed at the owner's expense if the dog has caused serious injury or death to a person or dog.

If a dog is deemed dangerous, but hasn't caused serious injury or death, the district court can order the dog's owner to take one or more measures, ranging from having the dog sterilized or muzzled, to having an identification number tattooed on the dog or having a microchip inserted under the dog's shoulder blade.

The owner may also be ordered to take specific steps, such as installing escape-proof fencing or an enclosure to ensure that the dog can't escape or non-authorized individuals can't enter the premises.

Any violation of the law results in a criminal misdemeanor offense, and the court may order the animal owner to pay full restitution to the victim or the victim's dog or other domesticated animal's owner for actual costs and expenses incurred.

If an animal causes a death, the owner would be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. If the owner's animal causes serious injury other than death, the owner would be found guilty of a felony, while an injury that isn't serious would result in a misdemeanor offense.

Mayor Dave Hemmer has asked the City of Prairie du Chien Health and Protection Committee to review a proposed ordinance that would ban pit bull terriers within the city limits. The city already has an ordinance related to pit bulls, so I am assuming this new proposal is for an all-out ban.

Current Ordinance (Section 12.30)
http://www.prairied uchien-wi. gov/downloads/ city_code/ CHAPTER%2012% 20-%20LICENSES% 20AND%20PERMITS. pdf

Please send your POLITE, RESPECTFUL and INFORMATIVE letters of opposition to the proposed ordinance to the city officials listed below. Please encourage them to move forward with an idea that was also discussed at the meeting that would remove pit bulls from the list of vicious dogs in the city.

Jodi Preis
Bless the Bullys
www.blessthebullys. com


City of Prairie du Chien
PO Box 324
Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin 53821
Phone - (608) 326-6406
Fax - (608) 326-8182

City Council Members:
jriebe@centurytel. net,kansas@centurytel. net,kdhein@mchsi. com,mwayne44@hotmail. com,
ksolomon@centurytel .net,titlbachjk@yahoo. com,jruskey@dpndbl. com,djames73@centurytel .net

Milan, Michigan

Milan City Council to tweak ordinance calling for 'reasonable control' of dogs, cats

By Gerald LaVaute, Heritage Newspapers


Milan city officials took another look at a local ordinance calling for reasonable control of dogs and cats.

The outcome of the discussion was a commitment by City Administrator Ben Swayze to discuss it further with Police Chief Jeffery Lewis and city attorney William Beach before returning to council with a recommendation.

At issue were the types of punishments for failing to keep a pet dog or cat under control, including exactly what was meant by "control."

The ordinance discussed by council members June 14 had a first offense as being a misdemeanor. Lewis instead recommended a series of responses that would begin with a citation to the offending pet owner in which a fine would be paid.

The penalty for a second offense would be a civil infraction in which the offender would be summoned to court and would have to pay an additional fine.

The third offense would be a misdemeanor and would carry with it a maximum sentence of 90 days in the county jail or a $500 fine, or both.

Council member Dominic Hamden wondered why the new ordinance would include cats.

He was told that the current ordinance applied to cats, as well as dogs, and Mayor Kym Muckler shared a personal experience that she had had with a cat that she owned.

Swayze said that the key change in the proposed ordinance was the introduction of a leash law to the city of Milan.

Other related issues were discussed among council members, including the safeguard of an electric fence on a pet owner's property that would make it appear that the pet was not being adequately controlled, when in fact it was.

Another clause in the ordinance that was discussed was the establishment of a minimum age for the pet, past which the pet and the owner would be deemed to violate the ordinance.

The proposed age was four months, but officials argued that it's often difficult to determine an animal's age, and would unnecessarily complicate the ordinance.

http://www.heritage.com/articles/201...1267839653.txt

Prattville residents want
tougher dog law

By Marty Roney • June 21, 2010

PRATTVILLE -- A delegation of Prattville residents
wants the City Council to put more teeth in the
vicious dog ordinance.

The Cooper Avenue neighborhood has been
"terrorized" for weeks by a Siberian husky that
allegedly roams the streets attacking smaller dogs
and making threatening advances to people,
Deborah Meliska said. The dog became aggressive
towards her about two weeks ago while she was
standing in her front yard.

Prattville has a leash law requiring owners to keep
animals under control at all times.

"Something's got to be done," Meliska said. "We have
children in our neighborhood and parents are
scared to let them play outside. We have people with
pets who are scared to walk their dogs. We have
people scared to walk through the neighborhood. "

She filed a report with the Prattville Police
Department, which led to the arrest of Bruce Kent,
48, of 1730 Cooper Ave., according to police
reports. Kent faces two misdemeanor charges of
allowing a dog to run at large. His case comes up in
Prattville Municipal Court on June 23, court records
show.

Kent could not be reached for comment. There is no
listing for him in the Prattville phone book.
Directory assistance had no Bruce Kent listed in
Prattville. When a Montgomery Advertiser reporter
went to the address listed on police reports Friday a
fternoon, no one answered the door.

The dog was seized by Prattville's dog warden after
the first complaint, said Tommy Pratt, who lives on
Cooper Avenue. But the dog was returned to Kent,
he added.

Pratt said the dog attacked his 16-year-old
dachshund as he was taking the smaller dog out for
a walk. The attack occurred on Pratt's front porch.
The dachshund had to be euthanized because of
injuries it received in the attack, he added.

"I saw that other dog coming, and couldn't get my
little dog back in the house in time," he said. "If I
could have got to my gun, I would have shot hell
out of that other dog. But I couldn't get to my gun in
time."

Pratt wants a city ordinance passed that would call
for the seizure and quarantining of vicious dogs.


"At least then the dog would be off the streets and
out of neighborhoods, " he said. "It's only a matter of
time before a person gets attacked. If a child gets
attacked, there's no telling how much damage a
vicious dog can do."

Council President Dean Argo said the Cooper
Avenue incidents, and unrelated complaints about v
icious dogs from other portions of the city, have
the council looking into strengthening the vicious
dog law.

The best way is for the city to adopt the vicious dog
law passed about a year ago by the Autauga County
Commission, which gives the county's animal
control officer more leeway in investigating vicious
or nuisance animals, said District 6 Councilman Ray
Boles, who represents the Cooper Avenue
neighborhood

"The County Commission looked at other laws in the
state before they passed their law," he said. "By
passing the same law the county has, we can avoid
problems in the future. That will mean the city and
county will have the same law. Things won't be
different for Prattville and areas outside the city."


http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/...ougher+dog+law