It's a shame when a community feels that they have no alternative but to ban a particular breed of dog. I am not a dog owner, but there was a time in the City where I live that not a week went by without a news item about another Pit Bull attack. The City Council finally enacted a Pit Bull ordinance. Only time will tell if it will do any good. I feel that it's not a dog problem, but a people problem. Responsible dog owners always suffer for the sins of the irresponsible ones. There seems to be a sub culture in our community of people who own vicious dogs in order to intimidate others. I am copying our Pit Bull ordinance here for your information. If any of you have a similar problem in your community, you may find this information helpful. I am not speaking pro or con. This is for informational purposes only. ____________________________________________________________ Sec. 14-75. Unlawful keeping of pit bulls or restricted breed of dog. (a) Prohibited . It shall be unlawful for any person to have, own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the city any pit bull or restricted breed of dog. (b) Definitions. (1) "Immediate family" for purposes of this chapter, includes the owner's spouse, child, parent or sibling. (2) "Muzzle" for purposes of this chapter, shall mean a restraining device made of metal, plastic, leather, cloth or a combination of these materials that, when fitted and fastened over a snout/mouth/head, prevents the dog from biting but allows room for the dog to breath and pant. The muzzle must be made in a manner that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration, but must prevent it from biting any person or animal. (3) "Pit bull" for purposes of this chapter, is defined as any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds. (4) "Restricted breed of dog" shall mean any American Bulldog (Old Country Bulldog), Dogo Argentino, Canary Dog (Canary Island Dog, Presa Canario, Perro De Presa Canario), Presa Mallorquin (Pero De Presa Mallorquin, Ca De Bou), Tosa Inu (Tosa Fighting Dog, Japanese Fighting Dog, Japanese Mastiff), Cane Corso (Cane Di Macellaio, Sicilian Branchiero), Fila Brasileiro or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of the above breeds. (5) "Secure temporary enclosure" for purposes of this chapter, is a secure enclosure used for purposes of transporting a pit bull or restricted breed of dog and which includes a top and bottom permanently attached to the sides except for a "door" for removal of the pit bull or restricted breed of dog. Such enclosure must be of such material and secured with a keyed or combination lock so that the pit bull or restricted breed of dog cannot exit the enclosure on its own. (6) "Secure pen or enclosure" for the purposes of this chapter, shall mean a six-sided structure designed to prevent entry of a child or escape of a pit bull or restricted breed of dog. Such pen or structure must have minimum dimensions of five-feet by ten-feet per animal housed within and must have secure chain-link sides, a secured top and a secure bottom. The enclosure must provide protection from the elements for the dog. All structures erected to house a pit bull or restricted breed of dog must comply withall zoning and building ordinances and regulations of the city and shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. The gate of the pen or enclosure shall be secured with a keyed or combination lock. (c) Exceptions. The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply in the following enumerated circumstances. Failure by the owner to comply and remain in compliance with all of the terms of any applicable exception shall subject the pit bull or restricted breed of dog to immediate impoundment and disposition. (1) The owner of a pit bull or restricted breed of dog who has applied for and received a pit bull or restricted breed of dog license within 60 days of the effective date of this section in accordance with subsection (d) of this section, and who maintains the pit bull or restricted breed of dog at all times in compliance with the pit bull or restricted breed of dog license requirements of subsection (d) of this section and all other applicable requirements of this chapter, may keep a pit bull or restricted breed of dog within the city. (2) The animal care division may temporarily transport and harbor any pit bull or restricted breed of dog for purposes of enforcing the provisions of this chapter. (3) Any veterinarian while treating or grooming a pit bull or restricted breed of dog, or holding such pit bull or restricted breed of dog after treatment until claimed by the owner or released to an animal care officer. (4) A person may temporarily transport into and hold in the city a pit bull or restricted breed of dog only for the purpose of showing such pit bull or restricted breed of dog in a place of public exhibition, contest or show sponsored by a dog club association or similar organization. However, the sponsor of the exhibition, contest, or show must receive written permission from the city manager or designee, must obtain any other permits or licenses required by city ordinance, and must provide protective measuresadequate to prevent pit bulls or restricted breeds from escaping or injuring the public. The person who transports and holds a pit bull or restricted breed of dog for showing shall, at all times when the pit bull or restricted breed of dog is being transported within the city to and from the place of exhibition, contest, or show, keep the pit bull or restricted breed of dog confined in a secure temporary enclosure locked with a keyed or combination lock and bearing a caution sign affixed in a conspicuous location warning people a pit bull or restricted breed of dog is confined within. (5) The owner of a pit bull or restricted breed of dog may temporarily transport the pit bull or restricted breed of dog through the city. During such transport the owner may not stop within the city for any reason not reasonably related to and necessary for travel. During such travel, the owner shall keep the pit bull or restricted breed of dog muzzled and either in a secure temporary enclosure or securely leashed with a leash no longer than four feet in length held by someone 21 years of age or older who is capable of effectively controlling the dog. Extension-style leashes may not be used. Leashes may not be attached to inanimate objects. (d) License. The owner of a pit bull or restricted breed of dog who has applied for and received a pit bull or restricted breed of dog license within 60 days of the effective date of this section, shall be allowed to keep such pit bull or restricted breed of dog within the city. As a condition of issuance of a pit bull or restricted breed of dog license, the owner shall at the time of application, comply with or otherwise provide sufficient evidence that the owner is in compliance with all of the following regulations: (1) The owner of the pit bull or restricted breed of dog shall provide proof of a current rabies vaccination and shall pay an annual pit bull or restricted breed of dog license fee to be set by city council. (2) The owner of the pit bull or restricted breed of dog shall keep current the license for such pit bull or restricted breed of dog through annual renewal. Such license is not transferable or renewable except by the holder of the license or by a member of the immediate family of such licensee. A pit bull or restricted breed of dog license tag will be issued to the owner at the time of issuance of the license. Such license tag shall be attached to the pit bull or restricted breed of dog by means of a collar orharness which must be worn by the animal at all times, clearly visible, and shall not be attached to any pit bull or restricted breed of dog other than the pit bull or restricted breed of dog for which the license was issued. (3) The owner must be at least 21 years of age. (4) The owner shall present to the city manager or designee proof that the owner has homeowner's or renter's insurance with a minimum of $100,000.00 for liability coverage which will cover any damage or injury caused by a pit bull or restricted breed of dog during the twelve month period covered by the pit bull or restricted breed of dog license. (5) The owner shall, at the owner's own expense, have the pit bull or restricted breed of dog spayed or neutered and shall present to the city manager or designee documentary proof from a licensed veterinarian that this sterilization has been performed. (6) The owner shall, at the owner's own expense, have a microchip containing an identification number implanted into the pit bull or restricted breed of dog. The city manager or designee shall maintain a file containing the registration numbers and names of the pit bull or restricted breed of dog and the names and addresses of the owners. The owner shall notify the city manager or designee of any change of address. (7) At all times when a pit bull or restricted breed of dog is at the property of the owner, the owner shall keep the pit bull or restricted breed of dog confined. When outdoors, all pit bulls or restricted breed of dogs shall be confined in a locked secure pen or enclosure or with an adult at least 21 years of age in the rear yard with the dog, and the rear yard enclosed by a six foot fence maintained in accordance with chapter 146 of this Code. A warning sign shall be affixed to the gate of the structure notifying people a pit bull or restricted breed of dog is contained within. (8) No pit bull or restricted breed of dog may be kept on a porch, patio or in any part of a house or structure that would allow the dog to exit such building on its own volition. (9) At all times when a pit bull or restricted breed of dog is away from the property of the owner, the owner shall keep the pit bull or restricted breed of dog muzzled and either in a secure temporary enclosure or securely leashed with a leash no longer than four feet in length held by someone 21 years of age or older who is capable of effectively controlling the dog. Extension-style leashes may not be used. Leashes may not be attached to inanimate objects. (10) The owner shall not sell or otherwise transfer the pit bull or restricted breed of dog to any person residing within the city except a member of the owner's immediate family who will then become the owner and will be subject to all of the provisions of this section. (11) The owner shall immediately notify the city manager or designee in the event that the pit bull or restricted breed is loose, stolen, at-large, unconfined, has mauled, bitten, attacked, threatened, or in any way menaced another animal or human, or has died. (12) The owner shall have posted at the front door entrance to the owner's property where the pit bull or restricted breed is kept a conspicuous and clearly legible pit bull or restricted breed warning sign obtained from the animal care division. (13) No person applying for a pit bull or restricted breed of dog license shall be granted a litter or fancier's permit pursuant to section 14-42 of this section for such pit bull or restricted breed of dog. (14) Failure to comply with any of these conditions shall result in a revocation of the license, impoundment and disposition pursuant to subsection (e) of this section. (e) Impoundment. The animal care division is authorized to immediately impound any pit bull or restricted breed of dog found within the city limits which does not fall within the exceptions listed in subsection (c) or (d), subject to a pre-trial hearing pursuant to section 14-4 of this Code. If the dog is found to be a pit bull or restricted breed of dog, it shall be destroyed unless the owner produces evidence deemed sufficient by the court that the pit bull or restricted breed of dog is to be permanently taken out of thecity. Sufficient evidence must include, but is not limited to, a notarized agreement from the person taking custody of the animal containing an address and date of transfer. Additionally, the owner must consent to an in-home inspection by the animal care division within 30 days of release for the purpose of verifying the dog's removal from the city. Prior to release, the owner must pay the cost of impoundment and microchip the dog pursuant to subsection (d)(6) of this section. If the dog is found not to bea pit bull or restricted breed of dog, the dog shall be released to the owner. (f) Penalty. Any person found guilty of violating this section shall, upon conviction, be subject to the payment of a fine of not less than $700.00. In addition to the fines stated in this subsection, a person convicted under this section may be subject to not more than one year in jail. None of the minimum monetary fines in this subsection shall be suspended by the municipal court and the penalties in this subsection may be imposed in addition to the court-ordered destruction provided for in section 14-4. (Ord. No. 2005-84, § 1, 10-24-2005) Secs. 14-76--14-100. Reserved.

Oh and I figured I would copy and paste this, this is just one of hundreds of links out there explaining importation and redistribution of pets.... footnotes also available to check this out at end of explanations. The answer for some shelters with empty runs has not been to contact shelters in their own regions or in other areas of the continental US, but to institute programs of importation from other countries and territories. According to their own records, one foundation, the Save a Sato 2 program championed by PeTA, has already sent 14,000 dogs to the US. Satos (a slang term for mixed-breed street dogs in Puerto Rico) arrive in US cities practically every day. Dozens of shelters are involved. Some of the shelters NAIA is tracking bring in 100-200 dogs each month and are placing them for $200-$250 each.3 From Florida, Texas and Michigan to New England 4 and the Pacific Northwest, more and younger Puerto Rican dogs and puppies are finding their way into American shelters every month. Massachusetts in particular is a magnet and a distribution center 5 for relocated surplus pets and strays, but other states with empty shelter runs are picking up the cause as well. This is not a phenomenon that can be brushed off lightly as a passing phase. If you examine the evidence and connect the dots, the steady influx of foreign strays reveals an evolving plan. New 501(c)3 charities devoted to rescuing dogs from distant lands are popping up in states across the US. They are not being formed to place only Puerto Rican dogs, but also to save dogs from as far away as Taiwan 6 and other Asian countries. Several shelters and rescue groups in the Northwest knowingly accept dogs from Taiwan, Puerto Rico or Mexico. There is another disturbing pattern developing, a trend toward importing progressively younger dogs. Two years ago when NAIA first began researching the issue, the foreign imports depicted on shelter web sites were of varied ages. Today, most of them are puppies. It is easy to speculate that if no one is capturing and altering the illusive strays that produce these orphans, then enterprising rescuers and shelter directors could help developing countries become breeding grounds for stocking US shelters. Long-term flooding of US cities with mixed-breed, foreign dogs has unavoidable implications for pet population dynamics in the US. The practice of importing dogs from developing countries not only prevents us from making further progress against 'pet overpopulation,' in time it could also diminish the responsible breeding and placement of well-bred, healthy dogs and cats.Many conscientious dog breeders are so concerned about 'pet overpopulation' they have already accepted the idea that a good breeder is one who seldom breeds. The problem with this conclusion is that it does not recognize the basic marketplace reality that demand drives supply. When responsible breeders quit breeding, it means only that in the future someone else will supply the public with the dogs or cats they want. In this specific case, it also means that the public will have fewer reliable sources for healthy, well bred and socialized purebred dogs. In the two years since introducing the subject of stray importation, (see /articles/archives/redefining.htm) the practice has taken off, with the result that some animal shelters are clearly operating as pet stores today. Whether they acquire their inventory from distant states or foreign countries or territories, they operate like commercial businesses, not charities formed to serve the public good. They acquire their stock at little or no cost 7, advertise their product using time-tested campaigns against 'pet overpopulation,' rotate inventory quickly, restock immediately and bring in staggering amounts of money. Projecting from figures on the web site of one active shelter, gross revenues from imports that include a constant supply of satos, will total more than $500,000 this year alone! It is also disturbing to see the animal rights party line being used against breeders to justify importation. The following quote was taken from the web site of the Humane Society of Snohomish County, a Seattle-area importer of dogs from Taiwan. "By saving Taiwan dogs, we do not feel this takes away from saving a dog at our own shelters. The majority of dogs from Taiwan are small and our own shelters do not have many small dogs. At this time we have over 38 people on our waiting list for small dogs. We feel it is better to bring small dogs in from another part of the world than to have these people going to a breeder. Many people, sadly, still do after they have been on our waiting list for an extended period." The Buddy Dog Humane Society 8 in Massachusetts shares the anti-breeder sentiment and offers a similar rationale on their web site: "Many people ask why we are taking dogs from Puerto Rico. The answer for us is simple. Most of the dogs are small, usually under 30 pounds, thus enabling Buddy Dog to find many adopters looking for a smaller dog, a new companion, without going to a pet store or breeder. At the same time we are helping homeless dogs get off the streets and into a caring home." A certain picture begins to emerge when reviewing Buddy Dog's statement of priorities: 1) to have the right product to fill consumer demands; 2) to prevent the public from getting a dog that was deliberately bred, whether from a pet store or a private breeder; and 3) to help a homeless dog. When coupled with the stated goal of the animal rights agenda 9 to eliminate the purposeful breeding of dogs and cats, the anti-breeder mantra echoed throughout this enterprise should convince even the most skeptical of readers that stray importation is only part of a far more ambitious plan. The oft-repeated vision for pet ownership espoused by PeTA's founder, Ingrid Newkirk makes humane relocation a moral imperative. "If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets." Eliot Katz, president of In Defense of Animals 10 and the foremost advocate of 'guardianship,' states a similar goal, "to convince people to rescue and adopt instead of buying or selling animals, to disavow the language and concept of animal ownership." IDA's leader says that it is essential for people to understand that, "an owner buys, a guardian adopts or rescues." Katz is currently leading the campaign to get Los Angeles to adopt 'guardian' in all of its municipal codes. NAIA unequivocally opposes the importation of stray dogs (and more recently cats) into the US for adoption. Importing strays is a dangerous and irresponsible practice and should be outlawed immediately. The only reason that laws don't already exist to prevent such destructive rescue activities is that no reasonable person could have imagined a scenario in which anyone would be irrational enough to do it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Health matters Even before considering the health issues, it is a reckless and indefensible practice to import stray animals into a country that pours hundreds of millions of public and private dollars annually, (and has for decades) into animal control and 'pet overpopulation' problems! Imports from other countries displace American shelter dogs that need homes, too. The importation of strays does not save lives, it sustains overpopulation and assures that adoptable dogs in US shelters will be euthanized. The current scale of importation also poses significant public health risks. These animals, destined to be domestic pets, are from countries where the standards of veterinary medicine are not as high as they are in the US. Diseases and parasites that are not found here may be endemic in poor or tropical countries. If the fundraising materials accurately describe the rescued dogs, they are not pets from private homes but strays from the streets and therefore are among the most likely reservoirs for parasites and diseases. In addition, they are bringing them into communal shelters where they are most likely to pass on whatever diseases or parasites they have to other companion animals or to their caregivers. Some diseases and parasites pose serious health risks for human health as well as for dogs and other species. Dogs are a leading vector for rabies 11 in many poor countries. Currently, the only thing required for a dog to enter the US is a health certificate and proof of a rabies shot. Given the incubation period for rabies, from five days to several years, with 20-60 days being the norm, unquarantined importation of street dogs from poor countries with low rates of vaccination for rabies, is a disaster waiting to happen. Exotic parasites, worms, protozoa and certain ticks pose significant risks as well. Living in a country where it is difficult to get a banana through customs, (especially since 9-11) and where livestock importation is strictly regulated and animal protection groups seek ever-tighter regulation of dogs from breed enthusiasts along with commercial breeders, it is a sick and intolerable paradox that poorly bred, often diseased, foreign-bred dogs enter our country by the thousands with the barest of regulation - often on airlines that fly them to the US at no charge to help out the 'cause.' Seemingly, the only unregulated operators in the animal world today are the 'animal dealers' working in the animal protection groups that fundraise on overpopulation while importing dogs from overseas. Indeed, the only thing that puts the madness into perspective is the fact that importing groups and the national animal rights groups that support them are still fundraising on the issue of 'pet overpopulation!' At NAIA we salute anyone working to improve the welfare of animals so long as they conduct themselves responsibly. If groups such as PeTA that support importation of strays want to help animals in poor and developing countries, though, we recommend that they take a fraction of their millions and fund spay and neuter clinics or launch public education campaigns. Those initiatives might actually help. Importing Satos or Taiwan strays, on the other hand, does little more than displace US shelter animals with ones that are more suitable for fundraising. NAIA recognizes that most people working in animal shelters and rescue conduct themselves honorably while performing a difficult and often thankless job. This article is not intended to tar the whole sheltering community with the irresponsible actions of a few. Even so, if the good people who work in animal control and protection remain silent on the issue, they are culpable as well. For too long, extreme groups like PeTA have co-opted the animal movement and brought shame to the cause of animal protection. It's time for reasonable people in animal welfare to separate themselves from the corrupt and radical fringe and bring respect back to their cause. The public needs to know that being humane doesn't't have to mean being insane! For more information on this and other issues affecting dog and cat owners and breeders, visit the NAIA web site at www.naiaonline.org NAIA and NAIA Trust will continue to work on the issue of stray imports. NAIA will pursue researching and reporting on the subject and NAIA Trust will set out an agenda for dealing with it legislatively and legally. If you have information on the subject, please contact naia@involved.com If you would like to work with NAIA Trust on this issue, contact naiatrust@involved.com. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Footnotes http://www.petpopulation.org http://www.saveasato.org http://www.daws.org/sato.htm http://www.northeastanimalshelter.org/special.html http://www.sterlingshelter.org/services/puppyrescue.html http://www.geocities.com/~t-aarf/main.html http://www.humanityforanimals.org/howyoucanhelp.html http://www.buddydoghs.com/html/satoInfo.html /articles/archives/aragenda.htm http://www.idausa.org http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/osh/info/rage_e.html Note: The synopsis below was taken from the following link: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/osh/info/rage_e.html "The World Health

re: cow names - I was a city kid moved to dairy country. Learned all those terms, but the hardest to remember/figure out was Polled Herford vs heifer. And with horses, the difference between a colt and a foal, colt being kind of the generic term many use incorrectly for a foal. That definitely wasn't the limit to my ignorance about country living, that's for sure, but the folks there were equally ignorant about some of the things those of us raised in the city were more familiar with. Usually it has nothing to do with brain power, just exposure. One of my favorite stories about common sense is a cousin who married young, with no domestic skills at all (her mother did everything for her). I was visiting and her husband went to the kitchen to get us some refreshments. He call out, "Susie, why did you put the ice cube trays in the freezer without filling them with water?" She replied, "But we didn't NEED ice cubes." She's not lived that one down.

I do as much of my own vet work as I can. I give my dogs and cats vaccinations, except for rabies. I take them to a low cost clinic for that and microchips. I give the dogs heartworm treatment. I put my own animals down. I realize this isn't for most people, and I don't think anyone should do this, if not experienced in doing things the right way. (The methods Anglo mentioned, in my opinion, are not the right way.) And I also realize most people wouldn't do this, if they could. I am not interested in getting into an argument with anyone on doing things yourself. Almost every animal here came as someone's reject. The shelter sent me several cats....they had all been neutered and vaccinated when they came here. I take others to the low cost spay clinic or the Humane Society does it for a low fee. I have a very good small animal vet that I also use, and two vets for the horses. I am especially fond of one of my horse vets, but what I really like about both of them, they are very upfront and honest and will give their opinions. I hate vets who don't tell you straight off and will let you continue on with an animal that may be suffering, because they know you don't want to hear that, or that it should be put down. The first horse I ever took to Dr. Knape, was a beautiful quarter horse mare that I bought from a real idiot. I knew she had a bad cut on her foot, and wasn't being cared for. I paid $200 for her because I couldn't stand to see her like that. Dr. Knape told me she had a tendon infection, and had a 50-50 chance of recovery. He told me he had just put down a 4-H kid's horse that had the same thing. (Actually, another vet was stringing me along with her, and I took her to Dr. Knape for a second opinion). It took 5 months for her to recover, and she was 100%. Five months of following exactly what he told me to do, which meant soaking her foot every night, among other things. (I sat in the barn and cried many times, while holding her foot in the bucket.) Dr. Knape is also the vet for the Houston Livestock show and rodeo. Here is a video of him made last year. The mares and foals he is speaking of, and you see in the video are ex bucking horse mares and their foals. You can tell by the condition of the horses that they are very well cared for.