Signatures 1781 total
Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 36 › »
-
151
Name: Mark Solis on Jun 29, 2007Comments: NO!!Flag
-
152
Name: Stacy on Jun 29, 2007Comments: Any animal can be aggressive so why target only certain breeds and its not because of their breed its because of how they are raisedFlag
-
153
Name: Nikie G. on Jun 29, 2007Comments:Flag
-
154
Name: Anonymous on Jun 29, 2007Comments:Flag
-
155
Name: Cheryl Anderson on Jun 29, 2007Comments: I totally agree with this petitionFlag
-
156
Name: Bridget Brooks on Jun 29, 2007Comments: If you have ever owned a pit bull and know how sweet they really are you would understand!!!!!!!Flag
-
157
Name: Colleen Brooks on Jun 29, 2007Comments:Flag
-
158
Name: Missy And Rick Yanish on Jun 30, 2007Comments: it is not the breed that is bad it is the bad humans that force them to be something that they are not!!!!Flag
-
159
Name: Ariel T on Jul 1, 2007Comments: the PEOPLE who raise pitts to kill should be punished; not the entire breed. let alone 4 other breeds like the pitbull. any breed of dog can be trained to attack; not just pitbulls. minnesota might as well ban cats for scratching people; sharks for biting people.Flag
-
160
Name: Rolandra A.Smith on Jul 1, 2007Comments: These people arent right for doing this.You all should be ashame of yourselves .Because dogs are something cute not nothing for fighting and killing other people and animals.Flag
-
161
Name: April Monigold on Jul 1, 2007Comments: I have known many wonderful dogs in my pet grooming career. If you want to ban the ones that really bit, go after cocker spaniels, lhasa apsos, chihuahuas, rat terriers, scottish terriers.... I could name several more "biters". The dogs listed on this ban are all very good, loyal and wonderful dogs. People who are not farmiler with how loving and loyal these breeds are should not pass judgment upon the entire breed. The laws for dangerous dogs should be enforced and repeat offenders (the people) should be punished with stiffer penalties. When my husband goes on deployments (US Navy) I feel safe in my home because of my large and loyal dogs (ST. Poodle, Shepard Mix, and Shar Pai-Hound mix.) Do not take the securaty and loving away from people that only these pets can bringFlag
-
162
Name: Anonymous on Jul 1, 2007Comments: Why don't you also look at chihuahua's, toy poodles, shihtzu's or any of they other small breeds. They bite twice as much as any of the breeds listed on your list, yet they never make it to the news. How comeFlag
-
163
Name: Jim Toth on Jul 1, 2007Comments:Flag
-
164
Name: Matthew Torell on Jul 1, 2007Comments: Banning dogs based on their breed is wrong!Flag
-
165
Name: Emi Widmark-Sundahl on Jul 2, 2007Comments: Way to general of a ban. Should be on a case by case basis.Flag
-
166
Name: Karla Rozeboom on Jul 2, 2007Comments:Flag
-
167
Name: Alan Giddings on Jul 2, 2007Comments: I owned 2 rot pit mix for 6 years and they were the most gentle dogs ive ever seen, especially around kids.Flag
-
168
Name: Jenna Nilson on Jul 2, 2007Comments:Flag
-
169
Name: Crystal McRandall on Jul 2, 2007Comments:Flag
-
170
Name: Rachel Anderson on Jul 2, 2007Comments:Flag
-
171
Name: Matthew Pepin on Jul 2, 2007Comments: dogs have feelings tooFlag
-
172
Name: Nichole Nelson on Jul 2, 2007Comments: I am a single mom with two kids, I am a very responsible pet owner. When my kids are old enough to be home alone, I have decdided to purchase a larger breed(boxer/rott). I would rather do that for protection, because the other options are not feasable. Children and animals are victims of their own environment. Remember it is the voters that vote you in, and it will be the voters who vote you out.Flag
-
173
Name: Geoff McRandall on Jul 2, 2007Comments: As an Akita owner who has owned 6 Akitas over the last 20 years, I strongly oppose this proposed ban. Irresponsible breeders and owners are the problem, not the breeds suggested. I have met and known good and gentle dogs of all of the breeds mentioned in the ban (except wolf hybrids). Any large and powerful dog can become a dangerous animal in the hands of the wrong owner. How about a "three strikes and you're out" ban on owners Under such a ban, if you are the owner of three dogs that are determined to be "dangerous animals", as defined in current law, you would lose the right to own a dog. This would both place the blame where it belongs and stop these people from ruining good animals and tarnishing the reputations of entire breeds of dogs.Flag
-
174
Name: Sarah on Jul 2, 2007Comments: There is no reason to ban these breeds of dogs, all dogs have temperments just like all humans do.Flag
-
175
Name: Cheryl on Jul 2, 2007Comments: I had a pit bull, I still she her on a regular basis. I trust this dog more than any other dog I am around. I let my 10th month old daughter play with her with no worry that she might do any thing to hurt her.Flag
-
176
Name: Molly on Jul 2, 2007Comments: There is no reason to ban these breeds of dogs, all dogs have temperments just like all humans do.Flag
-
177
Name: Christina B. on Jul 2, 2007Comments: I agree with this petition. My neighbors own a rottie and he is the kindest dog I have ever known. We are in the process of getting one of our own. I have three young children and they all play with the neighbors rottie.Flag
-
178
Name: Amanda Dahlberg on Jul 2, 2007Comments:Flag
-
179
Name: Andrew Dahlberg on Jul 2, 2007Comments:Flag
-
180
Name: Sandy Anderson on Jul 2, 2007Comments: I've meet several gentle, loving Rottweilers and Pitbulls, and they should not be condemned because some ignorant person can't take care of their dog properly.Flag
-
181
Name: Stephanie Michaelis on Jul 2, 2007Comments: How about stricter punishment for owners and destruction of animals that are dangerous. Owners have to held responsible for the risk they assume.Flag
-
182
Name: George Nelson on Jul 2, 2007Comments: This proposed ban is rediculous. This is killing some for the transgressions of a few. Hitler did that you may recall. how about putting some of your efforts into something useful, like reducing crime.Flag
-
183
Name: Grant McRandall on Jul 2, 2007Comments:Flag
-
184
Name: Ame Jackson on Jul 2, 2007Comments:Flag
-
185
Name: Howard Daluge on Jul 2, 2007Comments: This would be a stupid law. It is not the dogs fault it is the owner,period.Flag
-
186
Name: Eric Nelson on Jul 2, 2007Comments: I have never heard of a proposal that would hurt so many families and achieve no useful results.Flag
-
187
Name: Richelle Johnson on Jul 2, 2007Comments: I am the owner of two fun loving, well mannered abpt's that are known around the neighborhood for being sweet mild mannered dogs. to ban these breeds, means that you are punishing all of the good responsible people, who have spent their time, energy and effort on raising a responsible K-9 companion. If you think this breed is dangerous I challenge you to come to my home spend 30 min with my dogs and then tell me that they are dangerous and should be illegal.Flag
-
188
Name: Anonymous on Jul 3, 2007Comments:Flag
-
189
Name: Angie Reuter on Jul 3, 2007Comments: I vacation in your beautiful state every year with my family which includes my dogs. Please do not pass this breed ban and put an end to my vacations there.Flag
-
190
Name: Colette Mumm on Jul 3, 2007Comments:Flag
-
191
Name: Lana Belcourt on Jul 3, 2007Comments: You're right! Dog bites are horrific-especially when children are involved. I own a rottweiler named Teddy. That's short for Teddy Bear. He is the sweetest, gentlest dog I've ever had. I also have a black lab and a sheltie/rat terrier mix. All great dogs. They live with kids, cats, horses, and chickens-in perfect harmony. I have three children, all in sports, and we bring Teddy to as many games and practices as we can. If we don't bring him along, all of the kids on the team are disappointed and tell us that we HAVE TO BRING TEDDY next time. When they see him, they come running to hug and squeeze him and get slobbery gooey kisses from him-and I know he's just as excited about getting all those hugs as the kids are to get their hands all over a beautiful part of God's creation. I completely understand that you are passionate about wanting to put an end to viscous dog attacks-as you should be. So are the rest of us. Banning a certain breed of dog is not the answer-because entire breeds are simply not to blame. You have five breeds on your list-where does that list end Cocker Spaniels and Golden Retrievers bite more children than any of the breeds on your list. Do we then move to outlaw those breeds Labradors are the most popular breed-also responsible for more bites than your 'five'. Can't you please take a moment to think this idea through...and see where it's going to end up Why wait until you are looking back with profound guilt and regret at the heartbreak and tragedy you will have caused-let's JOIN FORCES and find a PRODUCTIVE way to come to the same end-keeping innocent dogs away from VISCOUS PEOPLE. I thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to working with you towards this shared goal of protecting the innocent. Respectfully, ~Lana BelcourtFlag
-
192
Name: Regan Stancer on Jul 3, 2007Comments: What is wrong with you Do you plan on outlawing/euthanizing all bears, wolves and other animals that could potentially attack a human, too If you want to reduce attacks by the proposed breeds, then make it harder for people to get one. It's the the way these dogs are raised and trained that make them agressive. Dogs attack when provoked, not for the hell of it. I think we need to focus our energy on the real problem which is human beings rather than innocent animals. Humans are aggressive and attack other humans immeasureably more than animals attack humans, and dogs tend to take after their owners. Don't punish good pet owners and good pets for the behavior of criminals. Some of the most loving and good natured dogs I've met are breeds on your list. What you are doing is no different than stereotyping a human being based on their race. SHAME ON YOU! Educate yourself and find something that will actually benefit the public to focus your energy on. Regan StancerFlag
-
193
Name: Wayne Walstead on Jul 3, 2007Comments: I'm sure I'm not the first person to voice this opinion but here it is anyway: Dogs are neither vicious nor dangerous simply because they belong to a specific breed. Dogs develop dangerous and aggresive behaviors becuase of irresponsible, abusive and possibly criminal owners and breeders. Dogs and responsible owners and breeders should not be made to suffer because of the pin-headed and reprehensible actions of those indecent few who have no moral right to own animals of any kind.Flag
-
194
Name: Rick Green And Joyce Rajendren on Jul 3, 2007Comments: Banning a breed of dog is about as effective as banning children from existing on public property because of poor supervision and behavior management skills "taught" to them by their parents. All dogs, in fact all pets, bite and attack. It is the responsibility of the pet owner to make sure any of their animals are properly attended, trained and kept in safe environments for both the animal and any people. And persons that are afraid of animals should be aware of their environments as well. The persons that owned any of the animals that generated any harmful attacks on other persons should be banned from the state of MN, as even a gerbil under their "care" would be a hostile creature, as will any dog they own in the future. You train the dog for how you want it to be, it isn't born to harm others. Ban the people, not the dogs.Flag
-
195
Name: Anonymous on Jul 3, 2007Comments: This is ridiculous!Flag
-
196
Name: Leanne Pinsonneault on Jul 3, 2007Comments: As a responsible owner of an American Staffordshire Terrier, I strongly oppose the breed ban proposal. My AmStaff and I participate in AKC conformation events and are working towards entering obedience and agility AKC events as well. Use your time to find ways to punish the irresponsible owners, not the animals.Flag
-
197
Name: Becky on Jul 3, 2007Comments:Flag
-
198
Name: Theodore Herman on Jul 3, 2007Comments: I have dealt first hand with the Akita breed and know them to be a kind and gentle dog.Flag
-
199
Name: Kristina on Jul 4, 2007Comments:Flag
-
200
Name: Jennifer Yackley on Jul 4, 2007Comments: I would expect more from a Minnesota legislator. It is beyond words that one of our state representatives would propose a bill that is so clearly ill-conceived. A few moments of research shows anyone that banning so-called dangerous breeds is not a solution to anything. Moreover, it is shockingly clear that Representative Lesch did absolutely no research before making this proposal. It appears, rather, that he is attempting to capatilize politically on the recent string of dog bites in the Twin Cities Metro. Minnesotans know better than BSL, and our representatives should, too.Flag