Please copy and RETYPE. Be sure to REMOVE all ( ) s and insert the needed
information. ALWAYS give your name, address and phone number.
(TO:..insert name here)
(your city, state, zip)
(your area code and phone number)
Dear (insert name here):
To be useful, legislation must be effective, enforceable, economical, and
reasonably fair. Recently, a bill (CITE BILL NUMBER HERE) has been placed
before (RELEVANT BODY i.e., city council, etc.,) that fails all of these
tests. This legislation is motivated by fear and lack of relevant knowledge.
It is discriminatory, impractical, and unenforceable. Worst of all, it will
not solve the problem. I urge you to vote against it.
The proposed bill would restrict the ownership of certain types of dogs,
specifically (INSERT breed/s here). These breeds have been the subject of
irresponsponsible and sensationalist reporting across the country. The media
and the inexperienced would have you believe that these breeds are vicious and
should be prohibited.
The plain fact is that there is no relationship between the type of the dog
and the number of incidents. If your town has 100 German Shepherds and 1
Poodle, you'll soon learn that the German Shepherds are responsible for 100
times as many incidents as the Poodles. Does this mean that German Shepherds
are intrinsically vicious? Of course not.
Taken as a whole, the (INSERT breed/s here) breeds have proven their stability
and good canine citizenry by becoming 'Search & Rescue dogs, Therapy dogs
working inside hospitals, professional Herding dogs and family companions for
A five year study published in the Cincinnati Law Review in 1982, vol. 53, pg
1077, which specifically considered both Rottweilers and "pit
bulls," concluded in part that:
... statistics do not support the assertion that any one breed was dangerous,
- when legislation is focused on the type of dog it fails, because it is ...
unenforceable, confusing, and costly... focusing legislation on dogs that are
"vicious" distracts attention from the real problem, which is
In light of the studies, the facts, and the discriminatory nature of the
proposed legislation, we urge you to take the following actions:
1. Reject the current legislation, which is contrary to fact and distracts
from the real issue: responsible ownership.
2. Work to establish reasonable guidelines for responsible pet ownership, and
encourage legislation that supports owner responsibility without reference to
Study after study shows that ANY dog, regardless of breed, will be whatever
its owner makes of it... nothing more, nothing less. Owners can and should
take responsibility for their pets. We suggest that the appropriate policy is
"blame the owner, not the dog." If a dog attacks a person, the law
should treat it as though the owner attacked that person.
Voting for this proposal as it stands will harm both the law abiding,
responsible dog owners and the victims, but it won't solve anything.