Dear Jan,

Here's a quick update on the situation in Council Bluffs.

As mentioned, two weeks ago (October 11) the BSL against American Pit Bulls
was reintroduced by Councilman Chad Primmer. He has two other council
members agreeing with him, so the ordinance passed first reading on a 3-2
vote. We had between 30 and 50 people protesting outside, about 26 spoke
during the meeting. Only two spoke in favor of the ban, and one of those
was a member of the Health Board which proposed it. So added to public
voices at the meeting in August, that makes a total of almost 50 people
speaking at public hearing with only 4 speaking in favor of the ban, and of
those 4, two ended up their remarks saying they wanted better enforcement of
dog at large laws instead of a breed ban.

Last Monday (October 18) we held another rally outside city hall. We had 14
people there and got very good coverage in the local paper and on three
television stations. We're planning another rally this coming Monday before
the second reading and are hoping for in excess of 50 people to demonstrate
outside. We also hope to have a sound system and light system in place for
greater visibility.  We are also trying to get people out with BAN THE
DEED NOT THE BREED signs along the President's motorcade route when he
visits Council Bluffs Monday afternoon.

Council Bluffs is becoming a national test case of sorts. Truth is we're
never going to win over these pro-ban people with logic: they refuse to
listen to reason or intelligent analysis of statistical data. The only
thing they may respond to is public pressure or civic embarrassment or
whatever you want to call it: the realization that passing such legislation
is going to subject them to continued controversy and commotion in court and
out which will damage their city's reputation and standing, hitting them
where it hurts the most, in the civic pocketbook. Our hope is the threat
of continued demonstrations and public unrest, with its attendant negative
economic impact, will get some city officials thinking more seriously about
where things are headed if they pass this ban.

While we may not be able to shake the one swing vote needed on the city
council, our hope is to nudge the Mayor into vetoing the ordinance, because
then they would need 4 votes to pass it over veto and they only have 3.

Petitions are also being circulated against the ban, and over 100 signatures
were collected the first day or so last week.   The three council members
in favor of the ban all claim they are speaking for the majority of people
who have contacted them, yet these pro-ban people have never shown up at any
public hearing or otherwise indicated their existence, so their names,
addresses and identities are all unknown.

What remains to be seen is if this "Secret Majority" (which doesn't exist)
will have more political clout than the scores of people who have spoken out
at public hearings and the hundreds if not thousands who will have signed
the petition against the ban by November 8. date of the third reading after
which it would become law.

I'll keep you posted.

Dr. D.