A couple of residents want to have pit bull dogs banished from Cedar City.

One of them had a child who was severely injured by an animal during an attack last fall.

Sorry, this one doesn't fly.

I love children and believe they should always be well-protected. They should be kept from all sources of harm.

But, I also love animals and understand that it is not the animal, it is the animal's owner who is responsible for a pet's behavior.

What would these people do with the number of pit bulls and other supposedly nasty pets people have in Cedar City, kill them?

I do have a couple of questions for the mother of the child injured.

How did your 4-year-old daughter encounter this dog? Was she alone? Did she go into a neighbor's yard? Was the dog loose? Was the dog aggressive or responding to the child?

Pit bulls are very sweet, loving animals. Their only aim in life is to please their masters. It is up to the dog's master as to how the animal turns out. If it is trained to be mean, it will be mean. If it is trained to be gentle, it will be gentle. But, even gentle dogs can nip or injure a child if provoked or injured.

The Cedar City Council would be making a huge mistake if it bans pit bulls or any other type of animal from the city.

Hold the owner responsible, but not the animal.

Posted by Ed Kociela at 09:20 AM | Permalink | Comments ( 0 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 )

Today the Supreme Court showed that the Judicial Branch is completely separate from the Legislative Branch of U.S. government with its ruling that is completely contrary to Congressional sentiment and its environmental policy that has been the subject of adversial and argumentative discussion for years. Below is a release I received today I thought I'd share with you fellow bloggers. What do you all think about it?

Washington, D.C., April 2, 2007—The Supreme Court today, in a 5-4 decision, overturned EPA’s decision not to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new vehicles. EPA must now reconsider its original ruling. The Court’s decision has broad implications, ranging from the judicial standing of environmental plaintiffs to America’s economic future.

“The decision implies that Congress ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 1977 when it enacted the Clean Air Act’s Section 202 regulating auto emissions, but somehow forgot to tell anybody. The same groups that sued EPA to regulate CO2 auto emissions under Section 202 will now sue EPA to set national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for CO2,” said CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis. “However, in previous rulings, the Court has forbidden EPA to consider cost when setting NAAQS. As a result, the potential for economic harm is vast.”

“The Court's decision empowers EPA to take control of America's global warming policy. This should certainly be a surprise to Congress, which has been vigorously debating the issue for years,” noted CEI Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy Myron Ebell. “For an agency as unaccountable as EPA to be deputized in this way is bad news for the future of our country.”

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) filed an amicus brief on behalf of seven climate scientists in support of EPA’s position.

Posted by Jennifer Weaver at 12:32 PM | Permalink | Comments ( 2 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 )