ACF Sample Letter 3

Dear Sirs:

This is in response to the pending legislation in your jurisdiction as to regulating vicious/potentially dangerous dogs via breed
specific legislation.

All dogs are dangerous under certain circumstances. Only when the owner or custodian of the animal does not properly train and
confine his/her animal, does that animal pose a potential risk to human safety. A common ingredient to the dog personality is to
guard and protect it's owner and property. ANY dog with that personality can become a problem for the public, if that dog is
allowed to run loose and is not responsibly supervised. The key word here is responsibility (per Websters, definition of
responsibility: Being legally or ethically accountable for the welfare or care of another.) To say certain breeds of dogs are
dangerous is not a complete statement. All dogs can be dangerous if in the hands of an irresponsible owner.

Please retract your breed specific bill/ordinance. Don't punish all of us responsible owners that maintain our dogs as
companions and members of our families. We can and do maintain our dogs so they do not pose a threat to anyone, why should
we be denied our companions simply because irresponsible owners of the same breed of dog have not "ethically and legally"
protected others from injury?

There are several samples of existing non-breed specific legislation (ie., the State of California) that is competent to regulate the
irresponsible owners and not punish those that maintain their dogs safely and humanely. I, as a responsible dog owner, ask that
you seriously consider the impact of breed specific legislation. The irresponsible owners don't care what breed of dog they lose
the right to own....they'll find another dog breed to fit their needs. I deeply care, because it threatens me with the loss of a family
member.

Sincerely,