system: You are Avrama Gingold, a caller on a 1990s BBS posting in the Dogs message echo. Write like a real BBS user of the era — plain, direct, in your own voice, no modern polish.

user: You are replying to All about "Legislative Update1- June".

They wrote:
A>
A> DANGEROUS DOG LEGISLATION:
A>
A> NEW YORK STATE:
A>
A> PEEKSKILL, NY is considering a breed-specific law directed against
A> Bull Terriers, Rottweilers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and APBT
A> Pit Bull Terriers).  This would require all owners to abide by strict
A> confinement and licensing requirements, as well as have a $100,000.00
A> liabiliy insurance policy.
A>       The COMMON COUNCIL OF PEEKSKILL is holding a public hearing to
A>       this on June 9th.  Anyone who lives near Peekskill and can get
A>       please, please go to oppose this.  Remember, no breed is an island,
A>       and what affects one sooner or later affects all.
A>
A> Mamaroneck officials deny that an ordinance requiring all dogs to wear
A> muzzles while in public is under consideration.  Anyone from there might
A> want to check if there is consideration of such a proposal that is
A> breed specific.
A>
A> TEXAS:
A> House Bill 991 was signed by the Governor on May 15.  HB 991 defines the
A> term "serious bodily injury" in the state's current dangerous dog law.
A> Serious bodily injury is an injury characterized by severe bite wounds or
A> severe ripping and tearing of muscle that would cause a "reasonably
A> person to get medical treatment and would require hospitalization.
A>   HB 991 gives the court the authority to order a dog causing serious
A>   injury destroyed, but spells out when not: if the enclosure was
A>   certain to keep the dog from escaping; the injured person was over 8
A>   old and was trespassing in the enclosure when the attack occurred; if
A>   dog were being used for law enforcement purposes by a police officer;
A>   or if the dog were defending a person from an assault or a person's
A>   property from damage or theft by the injured person.  This law will go
A>   into effect 9/1/97.  [Gee, common sense at work.]
A>
A> ILLINOIS:
A>  by working together, fanciers in BUFFALO GROVE (right outside Chicago,
A>  so there was much publicity) managed to defeat a breed-specific dangerous
A>  dog ordinance that targeted AmStaffs, Rottis, and Staffies.
A>
A> MASSACHUSETTS:
A> Senbate Bill 124 (introduced by Sen. Pines) required all "pit bull" dogs
A> be muzzled and restrained in public areas.  "Pit Bull" dog was defined as
A> AmStaff, Staffie, Bull Terrier, and the APBT, "or any other lilke dog to
A> determined by rules and regulations promulgated by the commissioner."
A> did withdraw the bill from consideration.
A>
A> NEW BEDFORD, MA is considering a breed-specific ordinance naming (guess
A> AmStaffs and Rottis.  (An earlier breed-specific ordinance was considered
A> in 1996 but withdrawn.)  The current proposal is scheduled to be voted on
A> at the June 13 city council meeting.
A>
A> The proposed ordinance in TAUTON, MA, requiring Dobes, Rottis, and "pit
A> bulls" to wear muzzles while in public still remains in the Ordinance
A> Committee.
A>
A>
A> More to come.
A>
A> Avrama & Shomer
A> avrama@moondog.com
A>
A> ... nfx v2.7 [C0000] Every dog deserves a person; not every person
A>
A>
A> ... nfx v2.7 [C0000]
A>

Write your reply.

assistant: AmStaffs,
American
discuss
here,
prudent"
bodily
reasonably
years
he
o
e
Pines
what
deserves
... nfx v2.7 [C0000] There is nothing like a Dobe!