Thank you to Best Friends for providing us the opportunity to come together, work together and for providing us some leadership in this important work! I was also in attendance for this conference and feel optimistic about Breed specific legislation for the first time - there is no way to repay you for this change of spirit!! I will be writing a blog on our website soon, I hope it will generate some more members to the network!!
thank you!
Mary Salter

---

What an inspiring event! I heard so many great ideas from active animal advocates and professionals in the areas of communication, law, lobbying, animal health & behavior, rescue & sheltering, and more.

There seemed to be general consensus in key areas. Everyone agreed that breed-banning is destructive and does not address existing problems. Everyone agreed that human behavior DOES cause problems:

* Breeding and mistreatment intended to cause dogs to behave aggressively;
* Neglect, abuse, and poor socialization;
* Intact dogs who are constantly chained and otherwise not part of loving famlies.

I'm so glad we're working together and at such a high level. Because it looks like it's time to get right on it.

---

It was an honor and priviledge to be in the company of so many groups & individuals who are passionate, focused, educated on the issues and willing to join forces against this pathetic farce. It was an amazing event!! and we look forward to change!!! One comment on how it 'slipped past' ~ the ban was put in place in 1989, lifted by the courts in 2004 (recall the Save Cyan petition) and Governor Owens signed the 'No BSL' in Colorado. Denver went back to court to fight for their 'right' for 'home town rule', won, and thereby reinstated their BSL in Denver. My personal opinion (for what it's worth) is that people were in such shock that this could happen in America, they just didn't know what to do except scramble to save their dogs!!! There were many special interest groups contacted and made aware, meanwhile, back at the ranch, dogs were being pulled from their homes & KILLED!! unless they could find a place outside Denver for them to go. Bottom line, people were being forced to give up their FAMILY dogs!! NO amount of reasoning with Denver made any difference ~ they had made up their minds. It's like it's something 'personal' with the City Council ~ they imposed this on the people with their own agenda in mind, no one was given an opportunity to speak to it and it didn't make any difference what was said. Shelters and rescues across the state were inundated with trying to find space for the thousands of dogs caught in this horrific trap. Please note: the number of Bully dogs killed, as provided by Denver Municipal, were 'only' the number of dogs killed in their shelter - it does NOT include the number of dogs killed in surrounding shelters during this time ... That's a sad fact. It has been an overwhelmingly SAD state of affairs. Now, for the first time, I believe their is hope for change. It won't bring back those dogs killed, but perhaps they won't have died in vain. To have this awareness raised acoss the nation, perhaps other cities will re-think their thinking and make wiser decisions concerning 'public safety' and see it as the SOCIAL ISSUE it truly is!! Maybe they won't victimize their citizen's DOGS as has been done in Denver, Aurora, Commerce City & others. It's NOT about the DOGS! It's about the PEOPLE!! On every level! It's a 'relief' to us that this is being brought to light and many are lighting their candles by it. Run on people! Make a change! Make a difference! Many thanks to all for caring!! May God Bless this effort!! Respectfully, Toni

---

Best Friends did NOT identify certain dog breeds as "dangerous" and never has, as far as I know. We did discuss the many breeds that are being banned in towns around the US in addition to pit bulls, such as Rottweilers and German Shepherds, but Best Friends does not call these dogs inherently dangerous.

Summit speakers stated that many dogs considered "dangerous" may be rehabilitated and placed in loving homes. Their people may need training along with the dogs to understand their animals' needs and prevent problems.

A single article in the magazine does NOT constitute a position statement. Best Friends certainly publishes a range of viewpoints. They have never promoted breed-banning or animal stereotyping.

Human behavior, such as breeding for aggressive characteristics, mistreating animals, and behaving irresponsibly around animals, were stated as the cause of "dangerous" dogs throughout the Summit.

---

EmilyS, did you attend the conference? Do you have any good solutions addressing the anti-BSL legislation which is consuming our country and world?

One of the important messages of the conference was that people who love these various breeds and are opposed to BSL remain united.

sherylcatmom has addressed your points with complete accuracy.

October 31, 2006 at 10:56 AM
posted by: sherylcatmom
"Best Friends did NOT identify certain dog breeds as "dangerous" and never has, as far as I know. We did discuss the many breeds that are being banned in towns around the US in addition to pit bulls, such as Rottweilers and German Shepherds, but Best Friends does not call these dogs inherently dangerous."

The overall tone of the conference was very good and many, many great points were addressed. The anti-BSL community was united with BF on many points. I was pleased to see so many people with so many different views, ideas and solutions ready to take on this issue.

---

I welcome further input from others who attended the Summit and/or who represent Best Friends about the following statement, which I would like to see addressed:

EmilyS wrote:
"BF's pre-conference publicity and descriptions ALL identifed the 3 point program, the first of which acknowledges that there are dangerous breeds I find it fascinating that BF representatives pretend that this statement somehow doesn't exist, or it's just some random words in a magazine."

Here is what I heard Best Friends representatives say: Dogs of certain breeds, size, and strength have the physical ability to inflict more damage than other dogs. Some dog breeds and individual dogs may have high pain tolerance, so if they are acting agressively it may be difficult to make them stop.

Best Friends acknowledges that an aggressive chihuahua is not going to inflict as much damage as an aggressive dog who is larger & more muscular.

One Summit presenter introduced the notion that some animals may be born psychotic, just as some people are, and that with medication they may be treatable. But this is NOT a position statement on Best Friends' part. It is an area being researched.

In no way do any of the above statements constitute support of breed bans or stereotyping.

Please contact Best Friends directly to express your concerns and hear the truth straight from the organization. Interpretation and speculation in a public forum do not bring us closer to the truth and they do not help us do what I believe we all intend: helping animals.

---

Thank you Best Friends for bringing together such an intelligent and riveting assembly of speakers! To echo some of the previous posts, it was a pleasure to hear people as disparate as Mr. Hardiman and Rep. Stafford discussing ways to help bring about permanent and progressive change. The inspiration instilled in us by Tammy Grimes and Joe Trippi made me feel empowered and the message is clear: get on board! The time for petty differences is over, and the time for each individual to help spread the word and make a difference is here, loud and clear.

---

Well, I am encouraged by EmilyS’ comments. From what I heard at the conference this is exactly the type of open debate that Best Friends wants to encourage. If we are going to fight this we need everyone’s experience and opinion. Better that we all lay our cards on the table and express our opinions.

Best Friends has 72 hours of video of the Summit. They plan to publish highlights and make all 72 hours available to those who weren’t able to attend or just have concerns. I really think they want your feedback and will welcome dissent.

Please continue to express your opinions and offer your outlook. What I heard at the Summit was that collectively we are stronger and more intelligent than individually. I think that may be how we beat BSL.

It was an amazing Summit. I’ll post where the videos are available when they are.

---

As an attendee at the Summit, I want to echo some of the sentiments posted here. BSL does not deal with the actual deeds of specific animals, relying instead on the public fear and perception that certain breeds pose the only risk of bites. As studies have shown, other breeds (like retreivers and cocker spaniels) are more statistically prone to bite.

Coming from a state where BSL is prohibited by statute, it has been difficult transitioning to one where it is the law of the land. As MGRANITO said, I do not personally agree with BSL as a practice. I am in favor of severe penalties for irresponsible dog owners.

Denver was an eye opener for many people with another common message that needs to be repeated. The animal welfare community has been fractionated on this issue with groups more interested in their individual views being the ones heard versus reaching a concensus and presenting a unified front. With so many remaining silent on this in the animal welfare community it is not hard to understand why BSL issues are spreading.

I look forward to the information that BF collected during the Summit.

---

I was thrilled to have been able to attend the Best Friends Summit this past weekend. There was a wealth of information that was shared by all: Best Friends staff, speakers and attendees. The camaraderie was infectious. It is absolutely clear as well as unequivocal that Best Friends and its members are on the right path to put an end to the insanity of breed bans. Joe Trippi, John Hlinko, Tio Hardiman, along with other speakers and panelists offered very powerful and immediately implementable ideas and suggestions. The atmosphere was friendly and completely well intended. I am excited to mention that many new members were recruited for the Best Friends Network as Michael Mountain successfully impressed upon the crowd that there is power in numbers. Explaining that as the army of people with like minds continues to grow we can more effectively be proactive about issues. The message delivered by Paul Berry, Michael Mountain and others stated that our growth will increase the strength of our ability to take immediate action the moment additional outrageous laws are even a thought. It was also clearly expressed that it is not too late to fight the bans that are already in effect. A great statement that we all must adhere to came from Tio Hardiman as he delivered the unforgettable quote, "Never Forget Denver." I know that Best Friends and its members will never forget Denver and do everything in its power to make sure that "Denver" never happens again.

---

I attended the summit this past weekend. I'm still puzzled about Denver's ban - over the "fact" that if 2,000 dogs were siezed from law-abiding families, why didn't the entire nation know about this? Were all of these families totally passive as ACO came and tore family pets from their arms? Many people mentioned that people in Denver were unaware this was happening. Yet, I also understand that people had time to form an "underground railroad" system for these dogs. Something just doesn't add up here. It's quite disturbing.

---

did anyone from BF identify WHICH breeds that they, according to the pre-conference literature, identify as "dangerous"?

Did they ever disavow the portrayal in their magazine of a dog that kills a cat as "dangerous" and likely to move on to killing people?

---

Sheryl, BF's pre-conference publicity and descriptions ALL identifed the 3 point program, the first of which "acknowledges that there are dangerous breeds".

I find it fascinating that BF representatives pretend that this statement somehow doesn't exist, or it's just some random words in a magazine.

Again, if BF states that "there are dangerous breeds", WHY do they refuse to identify which breeds they assert are dangerous?

Or if they have changed their mind, how about if they publicly disavow it with as much attention as they originally promulgated it?

---

I was one of the presenters at the conference. I do know that Paul Berry and Michael Mountain, on at least 3 separate occasions, stated that they do not agree with BSL.

I understand that you are concerned that BF is permitting BSL but I would assure you that they are not one of the groups that support BSL.

Fortunately, BF has taken an offensive move(which is a bold move for them) to tackle this situation before it gets out of control. In the Animal Control and Humane Society field, we see an increase for BSL in legislature. ASPCA has been trying to tackle the situation for a few years now and SAWA is also starting there review of this problem, which they are having at there conference in Tennessee.

The problem about dog (regardless of breed) bites is here and it is not going away. Legislatures are going to use any resources possible to reduce people getting bit. Like tether and S/N, BSL reduces percentages of animals that may bite. I DO NOT agree with BSL but the problem is there and without a united front and without answers to reduce the animal bites, legislatures will continue to create BSL to reduce percentages.

Don't focus on BF's views and focus on the situation at hand, people are being bit by dogs and BSL is viewed as a way to reduce the problem.

---

Since attending the BSL Summit last weekend, I have spent time each day encouraging others to join the BF network so we can effectively oppose breed bans and stop legislators from making hasty decisions as knee-jerk reactions to future situations. The message I heard clearly at the Summit is that we all need to be proactive in educating the public and legislators about this issue. All of us who want to promote the humane treatment of animals need to work together and not get sidetracked with small points of disagreement. We can agree to disagree if we keep our goal in focus - to hold irresponsible owners accountable for their actions and find appropriate solutions to treat individual cases, NOT blanket bans on entire breeds. Thank you to B.F. and all the panelists, speakers, and attendees who came together to show their support for the innocent victims of the tragedy in Denver and other cities - the DOGS! We as humans need to realize that WE are the ones responsible for how we treat each other and all the living beings in this world. KINDNESS is the only way we'll ever move forward. Michael Mountains' reminder that , "Kindness to Animals Makes a Better World for All of Us" says it all. Let's live by the Golden Rule and work together!
Karen Martiny
Animal Rescue of the Rockies

---

It's good that there is concern about so-called "dangerous" dogs. However, it should not be stated that there are "dangerous breeds" because that implies that one believes Breed Specific Legislation works--and it does not. There are no inherently dangerous breeds---so trying to outlaw breeding a dangerous dog is silly. (It would be different if it was against the law to 'own' a dangerous/vicious dog, as long as it could be proven that the dog is actually dangerous.)

Of course any larger dog might cause more damage than a 2lb dog. But is that the REAL issue? I think not. A small Doxie chewed off the legs of a baby. A lab severed the head of a child. Two of the worst cases.

The real issue is that accurate studies (not empirical studies) show that unsuperised children are usually victims, + they have no knowledge of dog safety, and the dog owners are clearly negligent. The ONE free and easy thing for anyone to do is to teach DOG SAFETY to ALL children everywhere. Shelters do not do it, and neither do schools or parents. Everyone is focusing on the dogs but ignoring the potential victims---the kids.

Dog safety training, and dog behavior training can likely be lifesaving. Don't all try to be dangerous dog experts when you are not an expert---you can do plenty just by mandating dog safety in your community. There should be legislation requiring it for all kids of school age, usually age six is young enough to understand, possibly younger.

If you are really concerned about Breed Specific Legislation, make sure you connect with a group that has actually obtained success in fighting such laws. And there are not many that have. (The ADOA has not been successful in challenging such laws, despite reading otherwise. Go check their cases for yourself. Their bad law precedent is used to BOLSTER BSL in many cities.)

BSL, even if tamed, will likely lead into MSN (mandatory spay/neuter) across the country. There is absolutely no proof that this will stop any dangerous or aggressive dogs, end killings in shelters, or stop anything else in reality. It's just a generic way of getting rid of breeding in a backhanded manner. These are all subjects of lawsuits in several states, which unfortunately, is required to stop this type of law before it gets out of control.

Please----if you want to help out in teaching others why BSL doesn't work---you need to know a lot more than just the average joe. Do your research carefully, and do not believe everything you read online. The media HYPE alone has convinced 90% of the public already---you aren't going to change that overnight. Many dog owners are apathetic are do not care, as long as their breed is considered "safe."

If you start with gettting the dog SAFETY taught to ALL kids, you will make a lot more progress in less time, it won't be difficult to do, and you can implement it anywhere. Dog attacks are rare. But dog bites can be prevented with proper education.

---