It's important to write letters that are relatively brief, dispassionate, and well-researched. You want to come off as a credible professional, not some nutcase on the loose. I've included below a copy of a letter I drafted for council members in a Washington city. I hope you find it useful. Please feel free to use this format as a template for your own letters.
Cheers!
Letter in Opposition to Chapter 6.18 of the Yakima Municipal Code
My name is Gemma Zanowski; I am an attorney in here in Washington and have been actively involved in canine rescue efforts and advocacy since 2004. I am writing to request that the Yakima Council repeal Chapter 6.18, the Pit Bull ban. The American Pit Bull Terrier, and related breeds (“pit bull type dogs”) are fully capable of living long lives as beloved family companions. Unfortunately, many are not given this opportunity because of misguided legislation that generalizes their characteristics based on unfounded stereotypes and fears. Chapter 6.18 of the Yakima Municipal Code is an example of such legislation.
There exists one principal study used to support the notion that pit bulls are dangerous: Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. The oft-debated element of the study is the percentage of total fatalities attributable to pit bull type dogs. However, as the researchers involved with the study have emphasized, it is impossible to extrapolate overall breed viciousness without knowing the base population of the breed, which the study did not know. The Center for Disease Control, the researchers themselves, and other researchers have since concluded that this study should not be used as a basis for breed discriminatory legislation (BDL). A second body of information has been used to misattribute aggressive incidents to pit bull type dogs. This study was conducted by Merritt Cliffton and is an incomplete, inaccurate, and shamefully biased compilation of media reports from a twenty-year period. Thorough investigation has revealed it to be garbage veiled in postulations of science. It must be disregarded.
Conversely, no reputable animal welfare agency or rescue supports BDL or the notion that pit bull type dogs are more likely to attack humans. In fact, pit bull type dogs routinely outperform many “family-friendly” dog breeds on temperament tests and credible research echoes this performance record. Further, no credible study on BDL has found discriminatory measures to be effective; in fact, bite incidence remains consistent with breed population.
I wholeheartedly support stringent dog that focus on owner culpability; t dangerous humans who indulge high-risk environments. If dogs are deemed dangerous this status should be considered based on individual behaviors, and not merely on their physical characteristics or reputation. The City of Yakima already has a dangerous dog law in place that describes particular behaviors that make an individual dog dangerous. An additional focus on pit bulls is extraneous and overbroad as it targets a class of animals of which most will never pose a public safety threat.
With the dire economic situation currently in Washington, non-essential spending should be clipped wherever possible. Best Friends Society fiscal impact estimator indicates that Yakima is spending around $100,000 a year to enforce Chapter 6.18 – money that would more prudently be spent to battle the chief causes of dog aggression: intact animals, chaining, and abuse.
Currently Washington is considering SB 5151, which would establish a state-wide low-cost spay and neuter program in order to curb dog bite incidences and pet overpopulation. If the bill does not pass, there is no reason the City of Yakima cannot consider a similar provision. Further, the City of Yakima does not have an anti-chaining ordinance; as 25 percent of dog bite fatalities involve chained dogs, it would be prudent for the Council to consider an ordinance that regulates chaining as well.
As dogs are considered property, accountability for their actions should fall squarely on the shoulders of dog owners. BDL provisions ultimately and strangely hold dogs accountable for their lineage, as the animal is impounded and in many cases euthanized merely for being of a particular breed. US ideologies increasingly reflect individual autonomy, and firmly established constitutional principles favor a presumption of innocence; Chapter 6.18 and similar discriminatory provisions in other localities contradict these tenets.
