Fort Riley in Kansas Bans “Pit Bulls” from the Base

RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATES
P.O. Box 1406 Newport, WA 99156
Web Site http://www.povn.com/rdows E-mail US rdows@povn.com
Blog https://rdows.wordpress.com E-mail List http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rdows

Cherie Graves, Chairwoman, WA, (509) 447-2821
JSD, Assistant to the Chair,
Director at Large, GA Chevalier@chevalier-bullterriers.com
B. Pensgard, Executive Secretary, Illinois Director, bpensgard@yahoo.com
Hermine Stover, Media Liaison, Director at Large, CA, hermine@endangeredspecies.com
Mary Schaeffer, Finance Director, finedogs@hotmail.com
Arizona Director, John Bowen, johnalldogs@sprintmail.com
California Director, Jan Dykema, bestuvall@sbcglobal.net
Indiana Director, Charles Coffman, candkcoffman@comcast.net
Iowa Director, Leisa Boysen, rdows_iowa@yahoo.com
Mississippi Director, Dan Crutchfield, farmer1@telepak.net
Nevada Director, Ken Sondej, 4winds@viawest.net
Tennessee Director, Gina Cotton, ginacotton@msn.com
Texas Director, Alvin Crow, crobx@austin.rr.com

To:

The Commanding Officer

Dear Sir:

It was of great concern to hear that Fort Riley has banned “pit bulls,” American Staffordshire Terriers, and their mixes from the base, particularly as “pit bull” is not a breed recognized by any breed registry like the AKC, UKC, or ADBA. Indeed, the slang term “pit bull,” which has repeatedly been found by many courts to be unconstitutionally vague, can refer and has referred to at least 30 different breeds. One could argue that any medium- or large-sized breed could technically be called a “pit bull” since this seems to be the standard the media uses. As such, statistics on “pit bulls” are greatly skewed making it appear as if the “pit bull” “breed” is inherently vicious or more deadly. However, if actual breed determinations were made for attacking dogs instead of simply labeling them “pit bulls,” no one breed would emerge as more statistically likely to bite/attack/kill.

Worse, breed bans have been found to negate due process rights (meaning they are unconstitutional) by several courts in the United States. We are told that these wars fought in Afghanistan and Iraq are undertaken in order to spread democracy to lands where the notion of freedom is a foreign idea, and yet this arbitrary ban is a stark violation of the constitutionally-protected rights to due process and ownership and use rights. Are my colleagues and those we represent to understand that Fort Riley would negate the very rights that our soldiers are fighting for in foreign lands as we speak? Is this just?