11/19/12 pitchfork needed to stop pit attack

Posted in the Massena Forum

nobsl

Syracuse, NY

#2 Nov 21, 2012
Actually, a pitchfork was needed.
nobsl

Syracuse, NY

#4 Nov 21, 2012
this time it was 10 bullets, a pitchfork might have worked though if you were like a ninja with it or something.
aint working

Massena, NY

#7 Nov 21, 2012
BSL is garbage

Send an alert to StopBSL

Thank you for helping us track and share BSL alerts! Please fill out this form (link below) so that we can assemble an alert. The more information you provide, the easier it will be for others to get involved.

BEFORE YOU BEGIN THE FORM

1. Please confirm that you are contributing new information. Use the Search field in the sidebar of the StopBSL website to see if we have already published an alert. Or, check our tracking spreadsheet.

2. No rumors or hearsay, please! Information gets distorted almost immediately in this day and age. The form will ask you to provide your sources for the alert. Good sources: a news article, meeting agenda or minutes, a clear-cut email from a city official. Not good sources: something your friend said, something you heard at the vet’s office.

3. This form is for BREED-SPECIFIC LEGISLATION ALERTS only. In other words, please do NOT submit: proposals involving weight limits/breeders/pet limits/etc.; proposals that involve private property or landlord/tenant issues (i.e. will not be imposed by a municipality or is not a law); BSL that has been in place for a long time and there are no plans to change or repeal.

Ready? Please fill out this form. Thank you!
aint working

Massena, NY

#8 Nov 21, 2012
Submit a BSL Alert or Update

Thank you for helping us track and share BSL alerts. Please fill this form out as thoroughly as you can. The more information you provide, the easier it will be for others to get involved.

IMPORTANT STEPS

1. Please confirm that you are contributing new information. Use the Search field in the sidebar of the StopBSL website to search for the municipality (e.g. city, county) you are submitting information for. This will quickly give you all published alerts and information on that municipality.

2. No rumors or hearsay, please! This form will ask you to provide your sources for the alert. Good sources: a news article, meeting agenda or minutes, a clear-cut email from a city official. Not good: something your friend said, something you heard at the vet's office.

3. This form is for BREED-SPECIFIC LEGISLATION ALERTS only. In other words, please do NOT submit: proposals involving weight limits/breeders/pet limits/etc.; proposals that involve private property or landlord/tenant issues (i.e. will not be imposed by a municipality or is not a law); BSL that has been in place for a long time and there are no plans to change or repeal.

4. Please fill out this form. Thank you!
----------

* Required


Is this a NEW alert, or is this an UPDATE to an existing alert?* Brand new alert. StopBSL hasn't issued an alert for this place yet.
Update to existing alert. I have the latest news or outcome of a meeting.
aint working

Massena, NY

#9 Nov 21, 2012
What is BSL?
BSL is an ethical failure. BSL is a public safety failure.
Description
Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is a law that bans OR restricts certain types of dogs based on their appearance, usually because they are perceived as “dangerous” breeds or types of dogs.
**It is a common misconception that BSL refers only to breed bans. BSL is seen in two forms: bans and restrictions.**
A breed ban usually requires that all dogs of a certain appearance (“targeted breed”) be removed from the municipality wherein the ban has been implemented. After the effective date of the ban, dogs in the municipality that are identified as targeted breeds are usually subject to being killed by animal control, though in some cases, such dogs may be saved if relocation is an option. Breed bans may have grandfather clauses that allow dogs of targeted breeds to stay in the ban area (provided they are registered with the municipality by a certain date, and likely subject to various breed-specific restrictions).
Breed-specific restrictions may require an owner of a targeted breed do any of the following or more, depending on how the law is written:
■Muzzle the dog in public
■Spay or neuter the dog
■Contain the dog in a kennel with specific requirements (6′ chain link walls, lid, concrete floors, etc.)
■Keep the dog on a leash of specific length or material
■Purchase liability insurance of a certain amount
■Place “vicious dog” signs on the outside of the residence where the dog lives
■Make the dog wear a “vicious dog” tag or other identifying marker
Breed-specific legislation applies only to dogs of a certain appearance, not to any and all dogs. It does not take into account how the owner has raised, trained, or managed the dog. It does not take into account the dog’s actual behavior.
“Breed specific” is something of a misnomer. Some breed specific laws don’t target specific breeds, but rather, a loosely defined class of dogs (e.g.“pit bull” or “shepherd”). Almost all BSL also includes a “substantially similar” clause:“or any dog with an appearance or physical characteristics that are substantially similar to the aforementioned breeds.” In other words, targeted dogs are often subject to BSL not because they are in fact a specific breed, but because they simply look similar to a particular breed or have a general physical appearance that someone might consider “targeted breed-like.”
BSL is sometimes known by another acronym: BDL, or breed discriminatory law.
Why Is BSL Wrong?
■BSL does not improve public safety or prevent dog bites.
■BSL ignores the plight of victims and potential victims of non-targeted breeds.
■BSL is costly.
■BSL requires each and every dog to be identified as a breed—something that has proven impossible to do accurately and objectively.
■BSL makes targeted breeds more desirable to irresponsible and criminal owners.
■BSL does nothing to make irresponsible dog owners accountable.
■BSL punishes responsible dog owners.
■Not a single canine welfare organization supports
aint working

Massena, NY

#10 Nov 21, 2012
Failure to Improve Safety
BSL has not been effective in decreasing dog bites or increasing public safety.
Just a few examples…
The Netherlands
In June 2008, the Dutch government announced the repeal of their 15-year-long ban on pit bulls due to its failure to ensure public safety. Dog bites continued to rise in spite of the ban. The government is now looking into behavior-based, rather than breed-based, legislation.(Note that the article says the ban lasted 25 years; this is obviously incorrect if the ban passed in 1993.)
The United Kingdom
The United Kingdom’s Dangerous Dog Act bans the American Pit Bull Terrier and three other breeds of dogs and their crossbreeds. Yet reports from the U.K. indicate that dog bites requiring hospital treatment have not decreased. Rather, 4,328 dog bites were reported treated by U.K. hospitals in 1999, whereas in the year ending April 2011 there were 6,118 such treatments—an increase of 41% over ten years [HES data]. The U.K. also continues to experience approximately four dog bite fatalities per year.
The media and many others have noted a sharp increase in the number of “status dogs” being obtained and ultimately abused. One contributor to a 2011 roundtable debate on the DDA observed:“Banning breeds inevitably makes them more desirable for the wrong kind of person. Pit bulls and Staffie crosses are now so common that people are inevitably moving on to the next thing – huskies, molosos, presca canarios. We can’t add every dog to a banned list. We need to look at why people are getting these dogs.” The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has repeatedly observed that the Dangerous Dog Act does not address the ownership and management issues that lead to the creation of dangerous dogs.
The U.K. has been struggling for at least half a decade to decide how to handle their continued problems with dangerous dogs. Most officials and organizations agree that the DDA is not protecting the public, but very few agree on exactly what should be done about it. In February 2011, Scotland officials took matters into their own hands by revising their laws to remove BSL (but unfortunately, as part of the U.K., Scotland cannot get out from under the DDA).
Aragon, Spain
Spain passed the Dangerous Animals Act in 2000, placing restrictions on nine breeds of dogs and dogs possessing “characteristics” of those breeds. A scientific study analyzing dog bites reported to the Aragon health department during a five year period before the Act was passed (1995 to 1999) and the five year period after passage (2000 to 2004) found that there was no significant difference in the number of dog bites in Spain before or after the Dangerous Animals Act passed.
aint working

Massena, NY

#11 Nov 21, 2012
Furthermore, the study found that the most popular breeds (none of which were targeted by the legislation) were responsible for the most bites both before and after passage of the BSL. The targeted breeds accounted for a very small portion of bites both before and after passage of the BSL. The scientists concluded that there was no rational basis for Spain’s BSL.

Prince George’s County, MD

In 1996, Prince George’s County, Maryland, instituted a pit bull ban. In 2003, a task force set out to determine whether the ban was having the desired effect in a number of areas, including public safety.

The task force found that
■The “public safety benefit is unmeasurable.”
■Across the board, dog bites had decreased among all breeds at about the same rate. The ban did not appear to have had any noticeable effect on public safety.
■What’s more, the task force expressed concern that the ban might actually be having a negative effect on public safety; animal control facilities and workers were stretched thin because they were constantly having to respond to “pit bull” complaints and house alleged pit bulls. The task force felt that this had a negative effect on animal control’s ability to respond to other types of violations.

The task force urged Prince George’s County to rescind the ban and institute non-breed-specific dangerous dog laws.

Denver, CO

Denver’s ban on “pit bulls” has been in place since 1989, and has long been touted as a success by a handful of Denver officials, but it turns out that the results of the ban have been unclear.
aint working

Massena, NY

#12 Nov 21, 2012
Aurora, CO

Aurora passed a breed ban on “pit bulls” and seven rarer breeds (e.g. Dogo Argentinos) effective 2006. The most recent statistics from Aurora demonstrate that the annual total of dog bites, including severe dog bites, has not decreased. The bites are primarily inflicted by non-banned breeds and types of dogs. Statistics also indicate that severe bites have not decreased, and non-banned breeds of dogs have been overwhelmingly responsible for those—putting lie to the oft-repeated claim that banning “pit bulls” reduces severe bites.

Perplexingly, after passing their ban, Aurora changed the way they tally dog bites—along with some other poor data collection procedures that make their numbers extremely difficult to compare from year to year. In 2011 discussions about the breed ban, city officials carefully ignored the city’s collected data on dog bites; possibly this was due to the data’s flaws, but more likely, the numbers were just plain embarrassing. The data shows that citizens of Aurora are no safer from dog bites today than they were before the breed ban was instituted.

Surely someone has had success with BSL?

The effects of BSL on public safety are seriously understudied, especially by the scientific community.

The few scientific studies that exist have indicated that BSL has little to no effect on public safety. In some cases, as in the U.K., dog bites appear to be a growing problem in spite of BSL.

To date, there are no scientific studies anywhere that confirm BSL or breed bans have had a significant positive effect on public safety.

The reasons for this lack of data are numerous:
■Some cities that pass BSL fail to collect bite data after passage of the legislation. They assume that the problem is solved, and do not look into the issue again.
■Or, as with Aurora, the city changes its method of bite data collection so that it becomes difficult if not impossible to compare pre- and post-BSL dog bites.
■Sometimes the city only tracks bites by “pit bulls” and not other breeds, so it is not possible to discern whether another breed is causing more problems after passage of BSL.
■Often, the city does not make its dog bite data freely and easily available upon request. The reasons why are unclear. One could surmise that this may be because of improper or outdated methods of record-keeping, overburdened office workers, or embarrassment over unfavorable statistics.
■Breed identification and many other issues raise questions as to the accuracy and validity of many dog bite statistics.
■There is no uniform method for collecting dog bite information, nor is there a primary organization to which all dog bites are reported.

In the few cases where sufficient data has been scientifically gathered and analyzed, BSL has not been shown to reduce dog bites or improve public safety.
aint working

Massena, NY

#13 Nov 21, 2012
What does happen under breed-specific legislation?
■Innocent people continue to be threatened, bitten, traumatized, disfigured, and killed—by non-targeted breeds and types of dogs.
■Innocent dogs are killed because they look a certain way.
■Millions of dollars are wasted and animal control resources stretched thin in order to kill dogs and not save people.
■Abusive and irresponsible owners carry on with “business as usual.”
■Good owners and their families are outcasts (if they keep their targeted dog) or devastated (if they give up their targeted dog).
■Reason, science, and expertise gets ignored or, even worse, scoffed at.
■Nobody learns anything about the real reasons why dogs bite and attack, safety around dogs, or responsible dog ownership.

Breed-specific legislation makes victims of us all.

Sources and Resources

Associated Press.“Dutch government to lift 25-year ban on pit bulls.” June 10, 2008.

Aurora City Council Meeting, Presentation regarding results of ban , June 27, 2008.

BBC News.“Dog asbos come into force in Scotland.” 26 February 2011.

Collier, Stephen.“Breed-specific legislation and the pit bull terrier: Are the laws justified?” Journal of Veterinary Behavior (2006) 1, 17-22.

Davis, Rowenna.“Beware of the law when it comes to dangerous dogs.” The Guardian, 30 September 2011.

Lakhani, Nina.“Dog bite victims up by 50 per cent in 10 years.” The Independent Online, Dec. 30, 2007.

Prince George’s County Task Force Report, 2003.

Rosado et. al.“Spanish dangerous animals act: Effect on the epidemiology of dog bites.” Journal of Veterinary Behavior (2007) 2, 166-174.

Sorenson, Dan.“‘Dangerous breed’ ban in Denver yields few clear results.” Arizona Daily Star, Dec. 3, 2006.

Watson, Linda.“Does Breed Specific Legislation reduce dog aggression on humans and other animals? A review paper.” From the Endangered Dog Breeds Association of Australia.
aint working

Massena, NY

#14 Nov 21, 2012
Injustice to Victims

Equality and Justice for All Victims? Not with BSL.

Breed Bans: Serving Only a Few

Question: What do these dog attacks have in common?
■July 2004 A 7-year-old girl sustains injuries to the head, neck, and body and is hospitalized after being attacked by a mixed breed dog.( TheDenverChannel.com ,“Young Girl Seriously Injured In Dog Attack,” July 13, 2004)
■March 2006 A “frail” grandmother loses part of a finger and sustains “massive trauma” to one leg after being attacked by two Boxer mixes.( TheDenverChannel.com ,“Grandmother Recovering After Dog Attack,” March 28, 2006)
■August 2006 A 7-year-old girl undergoes facial reconstruction to repair damage inflicted by an alleged German Shepherd mix.(Rocky Mountain News,“Girl healing from attack,” August 4, 2006)

Answer: All these severe dog attacks occurred in Denver, Colorado—where a ban on “pit bull type” dogs has been in place for decades. The ban clearly did nothing to prevent these people from becoming dog attack victims, nor has it helped any of between 400 and 500 annual Denver dog bite victims that are attacked by non-”pit bull type” dogs.
aint working

Massena, NY

#15 Nov 21, 2012
Be Sure You Get Attacked By the “Right” Kind of Dog

Consider, too, the aftermath of three extremely similar fatal dog attacks.

May 7, 2005, Waterford Township, Michigan—A 2-year-old girl named Samantha is killed by the family’s two female Siberian Huskies after being left unsupervised with them. The dogs had shown no prior signs of aggression.(The Oakland Press,“Family dogs maul toddler,” May 7, 2005)

May 9, 2005, Fruita, Colorado—A 7-year-old girl named Kate-Lynn Logel is killed by the family’s recently acquired male Alaskan Malamute after being left unsupervised with a male-female pair. Neither dog had shown prior signs of aggression (the family had only had them for three weeks but claimed that the previous owner said the dogs had no history of aggression).(Rocky Mountain News,“Fruita girl, 7, dies in dog attack,” May 9, 2005)

June 3, 2005, San Francisco, California—A 12-year-old boy named Nicholas Faibish is killed by the family’s intact breeding pair of pit bulls after being left unsupervised with them. One of the dogs had bitten Nicholas earlier in the day, but his mother nevertheless left him home alone with the dogs.(Extensive coverage of this case; one article can be found at SignOnSanDiego.com ,“Mother charged with child endangerment in fatal dog mauling case,” June 23, 2005)

In the cases of both Samantha and Kate-Lynn…
■local papers carried the initial story on the first day, and perhaps a followup story the next day

But when Nicholas Faibish was killed by pit bulls…
■the story hit the front page of most California newspapers, in some cases for days on end;
■the story was picked up by national news channels;
■journalists eagerly followed and reported on every development in the case;
■legal charges were filed against Nicholas’s mother;
■the ensuing legal charges and court case were reported on thoroughly;
■news media churned out related links to other attacks by pit bulls;
■politicians and the public started calling for breed-specific legislation and a ban on pit bulls;
■breed-specific legislation was proposed and passed at a state level

All of these children died. Their deaths were all preventable. Their deaths all occurred similarly. What was it about Nicholas Faibish’s death that made it more tragic; more deserving of attention; and more deserving of social, legal, and political action than the deaths of Kate-Lynn or Samantha?
■Was it because Nicholas was a boy?
■Was it because San Francisco is a big city?
■Or was it because Nicholas was killed by scary, evil pit bulls—not less-than-thrilling Alaskan Malamutes or Siberian Huskies?

What Do We Learn About Dogs?

Even worse than the injustice of the sheer inequality here is the fact that such uneven concern and coverage means that most people will never learn what really causes death by dog.

For instance, the common thread with all three of these attacks: children should not be left unsupervised with dogs. How many people walked away with that critical lesson learned by the end of June 2005? And how many people walked away thinking that only pit bulls are the problem?

As Karen Delise points out


“To address fatal attacks as a Pit bull-specific problem invalidates the hundreds of deaths caused by other dogs. This approach renders any lessons we may have learned from all non-Pit bull attacks useless or of no intrinsic value in the understanding of canine aggression.”(Pit Bull Placebo, 2007)
aint working

Massena, NY

#16 Nov 21, 2012
The Dangerous Effects and the Vicious Circle

Unfortunately, people who have been threatened or attacked by a dog of a socially-stereotyped “friendly” breed will chalk the incident up to a fluke, a singular incident,“nobody’s fault.” They do not speak out; they often do not seek retribution from the dog owner; they do not ask for stronger dog laws because they do not think that a law is necessary to deal with a fluke. People may sympathize with the victim, but they do not see the incident as something deserving special attention or action. It was “an accident.”

However, when someone is threatened or bitten by a socially-stereotyped “dangerous” breed, it is a much more emotional issue. The victim does not see it as a fluke, but as par for the course with this “dangerous” breed; the victim becomes angry that such dogs are allowed to exist and hurt people; the victim seeks retribution from the dog owner; the victim pushes for legislation to make people safer. Additionally, other people not only sympathize with the victim, but their own fears are magnified, and consequently, they, too, push for legislation.

This feeds a circle, or perhaps a spiral, wherein dog bites committed by stereotypically “friendly” breeds are generally disregarded or ignored by the general public, while dog bites committed by stereotypically “dangerous” breeds receive dramatic (and usually excessive) calls for some sort of political action.

Thus public safety is jeopardized by the passage of breed-specific legislation, which “saves” a minority of potential dog bite victims at the expense of the majority, and wrongly teaches people that only some types of dogs are dangerous.

What’s more, after the passage of breed-specific legislation, most jurisdictions simply move on to other issues; the dangerous dog problem is never revisited or reassessed.

Denver pats itself on the back because pit bull bites went down 77 percent (from 39 total to 9 total) over a three-year period from 2005 to 2007. To get this “success,” Denver killed 1,776 pit bulls, many of them pets. Meanwhile, non-pit bull bites went down only 10 percent (from 465 to 420)—and the decrease seems to be merely reflecting local trends in dog bite numbers, not any concerted public safety actions on Denver’s part.

Why isn’t Denver interested in protecting the vast majority of dog bite victims (400+ victims per year)? Because almost every dangerous dog conversation the city has ever held revolves around pit bulls and how the city is dealing with pit bulls. Nothing is being done about all those other victims, all those other preventable injuries, all those other mishandled dogs.
aint working

Massena, NY

#17 Nov 21, 2012
The Real Victims

In the end, who suffers when breed-specific legislation passes?
■People who live next to non-targeted breeds that are being dangerously mismanaged by irresponsible owners
■People who have been bitten or attacked by non-targeted breeds
■People who don’t realize that any dog can inflict serious injury or kill
■Children, parents, the elderly, adults, and dog owners of all breeds
■In other words, everyone
aint working

Massena, NY

#18 Nov 21, 2012
Expense

BSL is costly to implement and costly to enforce.

Administrative Costs

Prince George’s County: The Most Thorough Assessment of BSL To Date

In 2003, Prince George’s County, Maryland, authorized a task force to examine the results of a 1996 pit bull ban in the county. The task force findings were shocking. They estimated that
■The cost to the county to confiscate and euthanize a single pit bull was around $68,000.
■In the fiscal year 2001-2002, expenditures due to pit bull confiscations totalled $560,000. Income from pit bull registrations during that same period totalled only $35,000. Therefore, the county spent over half a million dollars enforcing their ban.
■The county had lost an unmeasurable amount of both direct and indirect revenue due to the “dramatic reduction” in number of dog shows and exhibitions held in the county.

Perhaps over half a million dollars a year is an acceptable expense to ensure public safety. But was Prince George’s County’s ban actually doing what it was supposed to? Was the community making a sound investment?

Apparently not. The task force found that
■The “public safety benefit is unmeasurable.”
■Across the board, dog bites had decreased among all breeds at about the same rate. The ban did not appear to have had any noticeable effect on public safety.
■What’s more, the task force expressed concern that the ban might actually be having a negative effect on public safety; animal control facilities and workers were stretched thin because they were constantly having to respond to “pit bull” complaints and house alleged pit bulls. The task force felt that this had a negative effect on animal control’s ability to respond to other types of violations.

Actual and Estimated Expenses in Other Locations

The Prince George’s County task force findings are typical of findings in many other locations.
■In 2001, a Baltimore, Maryland, auditor estimated it would cost $750,000 to enforce a breed-specific ban.
■In 2008, Omaha proposed BSL that would cost over half a million dollars to enforce.
■The U.K.’s Dangerous Dog Act, which includes a ban on certain breeds of dogs, is estimated to have cost well over $14 million to enforce between the years 1991 and 1996 (no more recent numbers are available). It has come under fire lately as dog bites (committed by non-targeted dogs) rise despite the ban.
■Even small cities and communities can spend tens of thousands of dollars annually to uphold their BSL.

All this money spent without any evidence, anywhere, that BSL actually increases public safety.
aint working

Massena, NY

#19 Nov 21, 2012
Lawsuits

As if administrative costs are not enough of a burden, lawsuits are par for the course when BSL is passed. Lawsuits are filed because
■Owners of targeted breeds feel that BSL violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
■Dog owners dispute the breed designation that an animal control officer or shelter worker has placed on their dog
■A municipality’s breed-specific legislation contradicts state law
■Breed-specific legislation violates the federal Americans with Disabilities Act

Lawsuits can cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and place a heavy burden on both the court system and animal control departments. Often, these lawsuits are brought about by responsible dog owners whose family dogs were confiscated simply because of their appearance, not their behavior. Such lawsuits further underline the high cost and senselessness of BSL.

Other Direct and Indirect Losses

Many people have pointed out that bans and other types of BSL also result in losses that are difficult to anticipate or quantify.

Population loss – People who own a targeted breed may decide to move out of an area that passes BSL. It is unclear whether BSL attracts people to an area because of a perception that the area is “safer.”

Tourism decrease – People who own a targeted breed may boycott or avoid areas with BSL. Kennel clubs and other canine organizations may similarly choose to avoid holding conventions or shows in areas with BSL. It is unlikely that individuals would intentionally travel to places with BSL because of a perception that the area is “safer” due to BSL; for people who do not own targeted breeds, BSL is a non-issue.(In fact, they may not even know what BSL is.) That is, when people decide where to vacation, they usually do not consider BSL a necessary criteria.

Loss of talent – Ironically, there are a number of cases of banned dogs being spirited to freedom only to become star performers in public safety fields. For instance, pit bull Neville was rescued from Ontario after the Canadian province passed a pit bull ban in 2005. Neville is now a K9 for the Washington State Police; he protects the public daily by sniffing for bombs on the ferry system. By banning pit bulls, Ontario lost at least one invaluable dog that now saves countless lives on a regular basis.
aint working

Massena, NY

#20 Nov 21, 2012
Submit a BSL Alert or Update

Thank you for helping us track and share BSL alerts. Please fill this form out as thoroughly as you can. The more information you provide, the easier it will be for others to get involved.

IMPORTANT STEPS

1. Please confirm that you are contributing new information. Use the Search field in the sidebar of the StopBSL website to search for the municipality (e.g. city, county) you are submitting information for. This will quickly give you all published alerts and information on that municipality.

2. No rumors or hearsay, please! This form will ask you to provide your sources for the alert. Good sources: a news article, meeting agenda or minutes, a clear-cut email from a city official. Not good: something your friend said, something you heard at the vet's office.

3. This form is for BREED-SPECIFIC LEGISLATION ALERTS only. In other words, please do NOT submit: proposals involving weight limits/breeders/pet limits/etc.; proposals that involve private property or landlord/tenant issues (i.e. will not be imposed by a municipality or is not a law); BSL that has been in place for a long time and there are no plans to change or repeal.

4. Please fill out this form. Thank you!
----------

* Required

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Massena Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Todd Harttigan is being watched 58 min redskin 1
Where's that Police Hummer now? 1 hr fes 11
Candice where are you? 2 hr icky llama yodel 1
massena school's how many kids will it take 6 hr curious 30
woman tasered 10 hr yup 70
honest car repair? Sat tech support 37
Pro-government shills in chat rooms trying to d... Sat reality 7
More from around the web

Massena People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]