Here are my problems with "banning" certain dog breeds

[Coventina]

1) After the ban is passed, how is it enforced? Do people who own the banned breed have to turn in their beloved pet for destruction? Even though it has never done anything wrong or shown evil tendencies?

2) How do you determine what a "pit bull" or whatever you've banned is? Pit bull is a term thrown around VERY loosly. How about dogs who sometimes look like pit bulls, like boxers, bull mastiffs, various bulldog or "bully" mixes? Same would go for Rotties and any other breed. Is it a Doberman if it is half dobie? Quarter? Eighth?

I say, strengthen the laws that punish BAD OWNERS! That's where the real problems are.

[Modem Butterfly]

1. Amen!

[bugslsu9]

2. did I miss something?

Where is this happening and to what breeds?

[ScreamingMeemie]

4. California is considering restrictions on the ownership of pit bulls

in view of a boy getting mauled to death by the family pet this past week.

[RebelOne]

40. Denver, Colorado has already banned them.

And they are considering banning them here in Georgia.

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

21. And... this LBN thread is ***HOT****

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1524566

[Modem Butterfly]

23. May I quote your quote?

In 1986, nonfatal dog bites resulted in an estimated 585,000 injuries that required medical attention or restricted activity. By 1994, an estimated 4.7 million people (1.8% of the US population) sustained a dog bite; of these, approximately 800,000 (0.3% of the US population) sought medical care for the bite (332,000 in emergency departments), and 6,000 were hospitalized.9-11 This 36% increase in medically attended bites from 1986 to 1994 draws attention to the need for an effective response, including dog bite prevention programs. Because(1) fatal bites constitute less than 0.00001% of all dog bites annually, (2) fatal bites have remained relatively constant over time, whereas nonfatal bites have been increasing, and (3) fatal bites are rare at the usual political level where bite regulations are promulgated and enforced, we believe that fatal bites should not be the primary factor driving public policy regarding dog bite prevention.

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

26. it's a CDC quote....

highlight this:

(1) fatal bites constitute less than 0.00001% of all dog bites annually,
(2) fatal bites have remained relatively constant over time, whereas nonfatal bites have been increasing, and
(3) fatal bites are rare at the usual political level where bite regulations are promulgated and enforced, we believe that fatal bites should not be the primary factor driving public policy regarding dog bite prevention.

and add this:

In addition, the 'deadliest breed' varies. Oh look...

"...from May 1975 through April 1980 and listed the following breeds as responsible for the indicated number of deaths: German Shepherd Dog (n = 16); Husky-type dog (9); Saint Bernard (8)"

Let's keep making the worst offending breeds extinct till no more stupid owners exist or fucked up accidents occur.

That's the ticket...

[radwriter0555]

52. Your fatalities list is a bit out of date. German shephards were the most

popular breed of dog from the 60's to the late 80s when owning the tough dogs like rotties and pits became popular in the inner cities.

Breeds go through fads like many other aspects of our society. Cockers were very popular for while, right now chihuahuas are THE dog to own.

Here, however, is an in-depth analysis.... http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/sep03/030915i.asp

and there is a LOT more information on the web for anyone who's looking to actually BE informed about the opinions they're holding forth.

[radwriter0555]

3. Sure, be strict. Pit bulls should be turned in and destroyed. Why not?

And any dog determined by breed standards to be part pit bull would be destroyed as well, and not permitted to be imported or kept.

What's the big deal?

This concept is for the well being of all people, not the for sentimentality of a few.

Most people don't own pit bulls, but we should all be protected from them.

Punishment doesn't PROTECT ANYONE.

[Modem Butterfly]

5. Hey, maybe if we killed ALL the dogs, no one would ever get bit

Except by cats. So then, we can kill all the cats.

[realisticphish]

7. hey

let's wipe out nature! always pissed me off... :evilgrin:

[radwriter0555]

8. All dogs are not bred to kill. Pitbulls and rottweilers are.

My maltese and pomeranian weren't bred to kill and chances are pretty good you won't find them in fight rings anywhere in the world.

[Modem Butterfly]

10. Only very rarely, by people who shouldn't have dogs to begin with

But then, having worked with animals, you knew that.

[realisticphish]

12. bred to kill?

no. but they are gentically inclined to kill; they are carnivores, predators. every dog breed has that capability

[RebelOne]

42. Excuse me, but humans are also predators and carnivores.

So how are they any different from dogs other than their species? Humans hunt and eat meat. I don't because I'm a vegetarian.

[realisticphish]

46. we AREN'T different

we just have a larger brain. what's your point? that we should ban people?

[MadHound]

13. No dogs are "bred to kill"

It is the owners who raise them, abuse them, torment them with "bait", teach them to attack human that can make any, I repeat any, dog kill. Let's take your prescious pomeranians for example:

"The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictibility is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)"

So, should we ban poms also, they're obviously vicious dogs, four pounds of deadly fury:eyes:

Stop repeating this bullshit that any dog is "bred to kill". It is completely false and does nothing except add to the hysteria.

[radwriter0555]

28. Then please explain why loving, well cared for pit bulls kill their

human families? What happened?

This article is pretty good. It explains the origins of the breed as first "bully dogs' used by butchers to control unruly bulls to slaughter and how they were eventually appreciated for their same tenacity in the fighting ring and for guarding.

These dogs were never bred for loving companions and household companionship. They were bred for farms and stockyards and fight rings.

http://dogs.about.com/cs/breedprofiles/a/pitbull_history.htm

I would prefer that this breed be banned from the USA. It poses a danger and a hazard.

[Modem Butterfly]

39. Well, hell, Poodles and Labs were bred as hunting dogs

Huskies were bred to pull sleds. Jack Russels were bred to hunt rats. Collies were bred to herd. None of these dogs were bred to be companions or to live indoors. But then, anyone who's worked with animals knows that breeding isn't destiny.

[MadHound]

44. Gee, these dogs were bred to corral bulls, like other working dogs

Like border collies, heelers, etc. Doesn't mean that they were bred to be aggressive towards humans. In fact, let me run a quote by you from your link:

"Dogs that exhibited human “aggression” were typically killed, meaning that only human friendly lines were perpetuated and desired. It is highly unlikely, however, that these culled dogs were naturally more aggressive towards humans than their bred counterparts but their bite threshold may have been much lower meaning that it did not take much for them to turn around and bite their handler. Animals were bred for an increased bite threshold, as far as humans and only humans were concerned, which decreased the likelihood of humans becoming victims of dog bites."

Thus they bred out those dogs with a lower bite threshold, and the dogs were less aggressive towards humans. Hmmm. Another thing for you to consider, in the early part of the twentieth century, pits were considered ideal children's dog, and were promoted as such through shows such as the little rascals and comics of the day.

And any loving, well cared for dog can turn on their owner. I've seen it happen with cockers(who have a notorious rep for biting their owners), poodles, beagles, virtually any breed. Such occurences usually arise from a mistake in the treatment and interaction with the dog, ie appear to be threatening the dog's food, suprising the dog, either while awake or asleep, unconciously assuming an aggressive stance, letting the roughhousing get carried away, etc. etc. I have a Boston Terrier mix who weirds out on rawhide bones, and will try and bite you if you are too close to her when she has one. Doesn't mean that she is a vicious dog, it means that she considers rawhide bones to be food, and being an abused dog from a former owner, she has issues concerning food. We recognized this, and let her be with both her food and rarely give her rawhides. And yes, other than that, she is a great dog, loves kids, socializes well with other dogs.

You can't just get a dog, throw food down and take it to the vet. You have to get to know your dog, work with your dog and socialize your dog. Dog's, like my Boston Terrier mix, who come from abusive homes take all that much more work and understanding. And if you're getting a dog from the pound, you won't know the dog's past, which could set you up for trouble in the future if you don't get to really know your dog. That is part of being a responsible owner, which sad to say, there are too few in this world.

[liontamer]

92. I have a friend who works in pit bull rescue

These dogs rarely come from "loving, well cared for " homes. Nonetheless, Pit bulls are rarely human aggressive, and when I stay at her place, my friend's pit bull guards me in my sleep. She's not much of a fighter, but she is a good barker. Unlike another friend's mini daschund who is vicious. But given her size, most people don't view her as much of a threat.

[B3Nut]

41. This bears repeating...

From www.fataldogattacks.com (site promoting a new book on the subject):

"THE BREED FACTOR
Many communities and cities believe that the solution to prevent severe and fatal dog attacks is to label, restrict or ban certain breeds of dogs as potentially dangerous. If the breed of dog was the primary or sole determining factor in a fatal dog attack, it would necessarily stand to reason that since there are literally millions of Rottweilers, Pit Bulls and German Shepherd Dogs in the United States, there would have to be countless more than an approximate 20 human fatalities per year.

"Since only an infinitesimal number of any breed is implicated in a human fatality, it is not only unreasonable to characterize this as a specific breed behavior by which judge an entire population of dogs, it also does little to prevent fatal or severe dog attacks as the real causes and events that contribute to a fatal attack are masked by the issue of breed and not seriously addressed. "

Painting all members of a breed as being "viscious" or what-have-you based on aberrant specimens or human irresponsibility is hopelessly fallacious reasoning. The American Pit Bull Terrier, in reality, is a loyal, eager-to-please people-oriented dog. They often to have a tendency to be aggressive toward other dogs, but human aggression is atypical. They excel at animal-assisted therapy, search and rescue, agility, obedience, and chilling on the sofa like our Deuce-dork. Deuce (who is a Canine Good Citizen) loves showing off at elementary and middle schools with his pal Weezee (pit/rottie mix, also CGC - knows ~50 commands and hand signals) when we do our "Bad Rap Dogs" humane-education presentation. Deuce can be seen here: http://www.dogster.com/pet_page.php?i=110739&j=t

I do believe a dog that shows human-aggression (unless the owner is directly and tangibly threatened) should be euthanized regardless of breed. I've been into this breed for many years, and find them to be outstanding companions. My wife and I do rescue, and often have foster dogs at our house in addition to the five dogs of our own.

I cannot recommend www.workingpitbull.com enough, lots of myth-busting and historical info there. Diane Jessup is a highly accomplished trainer and animal control officer, and a talented author to boot.

Todd in Beerbratistan, with the WI PitCrew

[democracyindanger]

53. presa canarios are bred to kill

So, you know, there's that.

[MadHound]

95. Umm, most dogs are "bred to kill" something.

After all, dogs are carnivores, so they have to kill to eat. Presa canarios were bred to be stock working dogs, and also used heavily in dog fights. This is much the same history as pit bulls, and like pits, Canarios get a bad rap, because they are now starting to become popular as a "bad boy" dog. Let me repeat, one more time, there is no dog that is bred to be a killer. It is how a dog is handled after it is born that determines what that dog's disposition is.

[democracyindanger]

101. Umm, they were specifically bred for fighting.

Not stock working dogs. Sorry.

[Modem Butterfly]

102. So were Chows, Shar-Peis, GSDs, Bulldogs, the list could go on

And on. Dog fighting has a sadly long history among humanity.

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

20. Look!!! Pomeranian's ARE KILLERS!! Ban 'em!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1524566&mesg_id=1526963

[RebelOne]

37. Rottweillers are not bred to kill.

They are herding dogs.

Read the Rottweiler history.

http://www.akc.org/breeds/rottweiler/history.cfm

[Coventina]

14. That's a real fuzzy area you have there

"any dog determined by breed standards to be part pit bull"?

Breed standards set by whom? AKC doesn't recognize "pit bull" as a breed (last I checked, anyway).
Who is going to establish breed standard? And ANY dog that fulfills ANY part? Like height? Weight? Length of body?

Wow.

on edit: checked AKC's website. Pit bull is NOT a defined breed.

[progmom]

19. the sentimentality of a few???

wow.

no real value of life or nature there, have you?

[realisticphish]

6. you know what?

i could train a collie to kill people. the Lassinator, if you will. If you ban pitbulls, than A.) people won't care and B.) they'll just find a different breed, like german shepherds

[kick-ass-bob]

9. Bingo.

Hell, you could probably train a beagle to be the most vicious animal out there.

[DS1]

56. So you're saying that people are naturally inclined to train

dogs to be vicious?

[Modem Butterfly]

58. Some folks

Beat a dog, starve him, keep him on a chain outside 24/7 and you'll end up with a vicious dog. Maybe you did it out of ignorance, but it's just the same as though you set out to accomplish the end result.

[realisticphish]

60. only people

who have, in turn, been trained to train others to train others to train dogs to be vicious

[RebelOne]

11. They have already banned pits in Colorado

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/articl
e/0,1299,DRMN_15_3765660,00.htmll


On first day of effort, city's animal control officers seize 12 dogs
By David Montero, Rocky Mountain News
May 10, 2005

Officer Lorraine Pacheco didn't know what to expect Monday - the first
day of Denver Animal Control's enforcement of the city's ban on owning
pit bulls.
"At first, I was like, do I even want to come into work today,"
Pacheco said from behind the wheel of her city-issued white van.
"People not wanting to give up their dogs, saying 'I love my dog, why
are you taking him?' It's not a witch-hunt."
It is the law, though.
The Denver District Court ruled this year that an ordinance passed in
April 2004 was legal, and about 200 owners of pit bulls were notified
by mail that they would have to turn over their dogs beginning Monday.
Doug Kelly, director of the Denver animal shelter, said that, as of
early Monday evening, 12 pit bulls were in custody after owners either
relinquished them or they were picked up by officers such as
Pacheco."We really didn't know what to expect," he said. "We were
prepared for a higher caller volume."
Of those dozen dogs, he said six will likely be euthanized after 24
hours. The others, which the city picked up, will be traced back to
their owners, he said. If the owners had previous pit bull
violations, the dogs won't be returned and will be euthanized. If the
dogs had no prior violations, the owners will have the opportunity to
relocate them outside the county of Denver......<snip>

[Coventina]

15. Kicking my thread because....

I haven't seen anyone addresssing the issues I raised.

[LeftyMom]

16. I used to have a Boxer

she was the sweetest and laziest old dog, and very gentle with children. It would never have occured to her to bite anyone, or to fight with another dog, or any problem of that sort. Her one bad behavior was a tendency to pull on the leash when we walked her.

A lot of people were terrified of her because they thought she was a pit bull. Boxers do look a lot like pits, especially the more barrel chested ones (the trend in competition boxers is for them to be very lean bodied, and they look much less like pits this way, but I don't care for that look.)

The problem isn't pit bulls (or rotties or dobies or wolf hybrids or whatever the "evil" dog of the week is,) it's bad owners and bad breeders. Some individual dogs (because of bad breeding or bad upbringing) shouldn't be around kids or strangers, but the majority of dogs of any breed can be trained to be gentle.

edit: if you have cable try to catch Miami animal police on animal planet. They have a blanket pit bull ban there and have for years, and they're still constantly picking them up.

[MisterP]

38. you must be delusional: you dare to disagree with the banistas!

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

17. Hey... I am 'stuck' in that other thread. I almost started a poll in GD

on this topic.

Thanks!

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

18. PLUS.... a lil thing called Constitutional Rights....

The CDC worded it well here: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

"When a specific breed of dog has been selected for stringent control, 2 constitutional questions concerning dog owners’ fourteenth amendment rights have been raised: first, because all types of dogs may inflict injury to people and property, ordinances addressing only 1 breed of dog are argued to be underinclusive and, therefore, violate owners’ equal protection rights; and second, because identification of a dog’s breed with the certainty necessary to impose sanctions on the dog’s owner is prohibitively difficult, such ordinances have been argued as unconstitutionally vague, and, therefore, violate due process."

Oh wait.... fuck those silly things.

[dajoki]

22. it's not the dogs

it's the owners. certain people should be banned from owning any kind of animal.

[Pithlet]

24. I have no problem with it

as long as people who already owned their dogs before the ban is enacted are grandfathered in. I don't believe that owners should have to turn in their pets when a ban is enacted. But, no one else in that community can acquire new ones.

It isn't just bad owners, although they're a significant part of the problem. I'm sorry. That's not a popular opinion around here and I'll likely get flamed for it. Yes, all dogs have the potential to bite. But, not all dogs have equal physical capability to harm or kill. Some dogs are definitely more dangerous than others. Bad owners do make the problem even worse. But, even if that were the case, and it was only bad owners; why should we have to wait until a person is killed before we do anything? It's a fact of life that a few bad apples ruin it for everyone. It isn't much consolation to the parent of a child who was mauled that the "bad owner" will be punished. Because it is too late. Welfare of humans takes precedent over animals, and the rights to own them.

I wish we had a ban on our community. The pit bull that lives next door scares the hell out of me. It snarls and gnashes its teeth at my kids through the fence whenever they go outside to play, and now they're scared to go into their own back yard. And these are "resonpsible pet owners." It's bullshit. We shouldn't have to live scared like this.

[Modem Butterfly]

25. That's a lot of privelage you've got going on

We shouldn't have to live scared like this

Perfect example of what's wrong with America today. YOU make me afraid and I don't like that so YOU have to change. Nothing personal, but this attitude is sickening.

Has the dog ever done anything other than bark and snarl? Anything other than just look intimidating?

[Pithlet]

27. The attitude that I don't want my children mauled to death

is sickening?

I'm not talking about a neighbor who is a different race or religion from me. Don't make this out like I'm prejudiced somehow. Dogs CAN kill, and they do so all the time. Snarling, growling and gnashing teeth is threatening. I don't want to gamble the life of my children by pretending that this isn't a potentially dangerous situation.

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

29. Well, if you think only certain breeds are capable...

you should enlighten yourself. You should take precaution with ALL dogs, not certain breeds. Even a pomerainian can kill (oh yes, see above). Not all pits snarl, growl and gnash teeth for the sake of doing it. ALL dogs are a "potentially dangerous situation".... not just pits or rotts!!

[Pithlet]

31. See? I never said that.

I did not say that only certain breeds are capable. I'm fully aware that any dog is potentially dangerous. However, certain breeds are responsible for a greater percentage of fatal incidents. That is a fact. Compare fatal incidents of Pomeranian as compared to rototillers, and I think you'll find there is a HUGE difference. A bite from a rototiller is far more likely to be fatal. There is a reason that certain breeds are targeted by criminals who train them to fight.

[Modem Butterfly]

34. Rototiller?

Holy GM Foods Batman, people are breeding gardening tools now?!?

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

36. heh.....

[Pithlet]

47. It was a spell check thing

I have a differing opinion, and it is now okay to treat me like this?

[MisterP]

63. like what?

[Pithlet]

64. Read this thread

I'm being treated like I'm some freeper. And my typos are being laughed at. This isn't a good natured ribbing I'm taking, here.

[Modem Butterfly]

67. Well, just the one

You've got to admit, the idea of breeding Rototillers with a taste for human flesh is pretty damn funny...

[Pithlet]

70. It is an amusing substitute

I admit.

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

35. So..... ban ALL breeds, then? Outlaw dogs in general??

Oh wait.... lil bitty dogs are ok.

Gotcha.

[Pithlet]

43. Once again. I didn't say that.

I'm done. You don't want to discuss this with me. You want to flame me and put words in my mouth.

[Modem Butterfly]

32. My Pei seems to snarl and growl all the time

His face is so wrinkley and smushed up that he sounds like he's growling when he's breathing heavy. I'd wager that the dog that's next door is excited by activity and is pushing his face into the fence so hard that he sounds more vicious than he is. Of course, snarling and growling is a sign of fear from dogs. I wonder if Pithlet's kids have been harassing the dog when her back is turned?

[Pithlet]

61. You are crossing the line

You can wonder all you want. But, my kids have never been near that dog. I'm really getting upset, here. I like you. I've always liked yo u on this boar.d I don't understand why you're doing this.

[Modem Butterfly]

66. I'm not sure why you're taking this personally

You need to relax. Seriously.

I'm not sure how old your kids are, but kids can and do do things their parents aren't aware of and one of those things is teasing dogs. A large number of bite cases are traced to unsupervised child/dog interactions. I'm thinking of one case in particular on a Chow Chow discussion board I'm part of where a woman came on saying her Chow had bitten her stepson who had been playing with the dog for half an hour. Turns out, he had been hitting the dog with a wiffleball bat for half an hour. You hit me with a wiffleball bat for half an hour and I'd bite you, too.

We have some kids in our neighborhood who like to run a stick up and down our privacy fence. They yell and bark and throw things to make my dogs go nuts, especially my Pei. I had to get video of them doing it before their parents would believe me. They told their parents my dog was vicious, well, he was just frightened and annoyed, like anyone getting yelled at by invisible (to him) people.

Look, why don't you talk to your neighbor? Check the dog out yourself. See if he behaves the same way when he can get a good look at you. If you feel comfortable, let him smell your hand a bit. Dogs are like anyone else, they're frightened of the unknown. Try removing the mystery a bit and see if that doesn't help.

[Pithlet]

69. You implied that my kids were doing something to that dog

If you had just replied the way you did now, there would be no issue.

I do feel as though I was attacked in this thread for an unpopular opinion. No one seemed to want to discuss why I was wrong, and wanted to treat me as though I were an idiot freeper, instead.

[Modem Butterfly]

77. Actually, I outright asked it

I don't know how old your kids are, but is it possible that they've been taunting the dog? Kids do exactly that. Heck, I did it myself when I was a kid. Young kids get their kicks in weird ways, one of which being getting dogs worked up. I'm not accusing your kids of doing anything, but I am saying that might be part of the problem.

[Pithlet]

84. No, it isn't possible

Because they are very small. They aren't allowed in the yard without me.

The way you asked it, as if you were asking everyone else in the thread to speculate along with you, and not that you were seriously asking me that question.

[Modem Butterfly]

30. The attitude that YOUR comfort trumps SOMEONE else's rights

YOU are frightened of your neighbor's dog. YOU shouldn't have to be afraid. Your NEIGHBOR should get rid of his dog. That's sickening.

BTW, my original question remains unanswered: has the dog ever done anything but snarl and bark at you?

I'm not talking about a neighbor who is a different race or religion from me. Don't make this out like I'm prejudiced somehow.

Interesting that you bring this up. It wasn't a direction I had intended to go, but it does sound rather Freepish, doesn't it? It reminds me of the essay "You Scare Me", attributed to an anonymous pilot and directed at Muslims. And it's the same attitude: MY comfort trumps YOUR rights.

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

33. "MY comfort trumps YOUR rights. "

:applause:

[Pithlet]

48. I'm afraid that my kids will be mauled

I never said I would force my neighbor to get rid of their dog.

I'm getting upset, here. I don't think I deserve the treatment I'm getting in this thread.

[Pithlet]

45. Listen

Having a dog snarl and bear its teeth at you is frightening. Why would you make me out to be some freeperish weirdo for this? That makes no sense. Why would you judge me when you don't even know the situation, and you haven't seen this dog, and you don't even know what my situation is? Because I have a differing opinion on this matter than you do?

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

50. Because maybe you should say that THAT dog frightens you... that

THAT dog should be dealt with. But, to imply or state that a SINGLE dog that you don't like is represenative of an entire breed is something on which you should be called out.

[Pithlet]

59. Again. I didn't say that.

I never said any of those things. I don't think that all members of any breed are bad. I do think, however, that some breeds are more likely than others to be dangerous. It does NOT mean that I think that every dog specific to that breed is dangerous.

I'm not even advocating taking dogs away from people. That goes way beyond what I would consider reasonable. But, I think a community is within its rights to ban ANYTHING that can pose a potential threat to its citizens. And if there are a record amount of fatal incidences, and they occor within a specific breed, then they are within their rights to say that no one else can acquire that particular breed. I'm not saying I would push for such legislation. I'm not sure I would. But, I don't think it is unreasonable, either.

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

65. OK... THIS, you just said....

"...I think a community is within its rights to ban ANYTHING that can pose a potential threat to its citizens."

Like... cars? cigarettes? booze? fatty foods?

[Modem Butterfly]

68. Voting democratic? Worshipping at a weird church?

Not mowing your lawn often enough?

[Pithlet]

73. This is what I was talking about.

I'm not an idiot. I'm not a rightwinger. Really.

[Modem Butterfly]

82. It's taking an argument to it's illogical conclusion

Not attributing the conclusions to you, but the line of argumentation does go in that direction.

[Pithlet]

87. But, it doesn't, not necessarily.

You could take your view to the opposite extreme as well, and say that it is never okay to ban anything. Do you beleive that? It's not okay to ban assault weapons? Drunk driving?

[Modem Butterfly]

88. By all means, if you feel it would advance the argument

But be aware that many have tried that today with limited success. The fact is that I and other animal lovers aren't saying that nothing should ever be banned. Quite the opposite, we're advancing the argument that humans who are responsible for dangerous animals be held responsible, rather than animals who resemble dangerous animals.

[Pithlet]

90. Then you and I agree more than you realize

Because really, that's all I've been saying. I am an animal lover as well. And I DO want those who are responsible held accountable. But, I refuse to rule out all preemptive measures. I don't think it is right to do nothing at all until someone is killed. If irresponsible pet owners are creating a deadly danger, then something HAS to be done about it, and before the next death happens.

I express the opnion that I don't think a ban is always necessarily a bad thing, and I'm given the response that all dogs are potentially dangerous. Well, no kidding. I do think that all measures have to be considered before something as drastic as a banning. But, if the deaths and maulings continue to occur, then that next drastic step may have to be taken. Because I value human life more than the right to own a specific kind of pet. This isn't just about being afraid. Dogs can kill, and some breeds ARE more likely to do that than others. I don't think that means all members of that breed are dangerous. And, those who own that breed would be better off going after the irresponsible owners as well, instead of those who want to protect the public. All that does is reinforce the idea in their heads that there is something wrong with that breed, and the people who own them.

[Pithlet]

71. Ugh

No. Not like cars. Or cigarettes. Or booze. Or fatty foods.

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

76. Cars and cigarettes and booze pose a FAR greater risk to your child

than pit bulls do. Isn't your community responsible for protecting the kids???!?








:sarcasm:

[Pithlet]

78. Is a bottle of booze

going to run out of nowhere and rip the throad out of my kid?

Didn't think so.

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

79. That's soooo dramatic!!!

No, but a drunk person sure as FUCK could!! And... is far more likely to than a pit bull!!

[Pithlet]

80. I was being sarcastic, too

I thought you would be able to spot sarcasm from a mile away.

God, I'm sorry I even stepped foot in this thread. Jesus.

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

86. I just don't get the logic that you are using. Seriously.

The highest number of fatalities in a year on that CDC report (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf) is 34. Of that 34, EIGHT were pits.

EIGHT deaths per year. EIGHT... in the whole COUNTRY.

You act as though it's 8,000!! Your argument regarding your community keeping you safe is plain silly. IF you believe that, focus on the stuff can REALLY make a difference:

http://www.nsc.org/library/rept2000.htm
Leading Causes of Unintentional Injury Deaths
United States, 2001

Motor Vehicle - 42,900
Poisoning - 14,500
Falls - 14,200
Suffocation by Inhalation or Ingestion - 4,200
Fires, Flames and Smoke - 3,900

[Pithlet]

89. No, I don't

You seem to be ascribing arguments and viewpoints to me that I never made. You're treating me as though I'm very much for banning these breeds. I'm not, not necessarily. I'm only saying that there IS a danger factor here, and I don't think it can be ignored. It certainly doesn't do the cause any good to pretend that Rotweillers, as a breed, are exactly the same as miniature poodles. It is about assuring public safety. If too many owners of a specific breed are careless, and it results in a number of deaths, then that problem DOES need to be addressed. If a community weighs the risks and decides a ban is in order, then I think they are within their rights.

It seems as though all you're doing is ignoring that the danger even exists. That you're equating rotweillers with pomeranians. I don't understand that logic, either. Yes, both are dogs. Both can bite and inflict damage. But, the potential for damage is greater for the rotweiller overall, and to insist otherwise is ridiculous. It would be better to inform and educate the population, and perhaps come up with ways to alleviate the problem that DOES exist, by coming up with ways to deal with it. Not deny the problem exists outright. That will do nothing but reinforce those who would support a ban that it is the right thing to do, because the pro-*insert breed here* owners refuse to acknowledge there is a problem.

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

91. I have repeatedly said that problem dogs MUST be put down.

No question. And, in cases where abuse, neglect and cruelty have factored into the equation - throw the book at the assholes. No doubt.

I have seen harsh generalizations on DU in the past day making blanket statements calling "every damn one of them." monsters, harsh criticism of owners of well-behaved dogs and a general idea that it's OK to buy into the media hype on this topic. That's what it is, ya know.... media hype.

I apologize if I came at you hard, I feel very passionately about this topic, which is clear. But, I also am surprised and appalled that some DUers would support breed-specific legislation. It should never be OK to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I understand now that you may not be one of them who would support the legislation - and I hope you'd look at the facts with an open-mind rather than a poor experience with a neighbor's dog.

[Pithlet]

94. I definitely don't think

that these issues should be addressed with prejudices that have no basis in fact. That is why any kind of legislation like that should be carefully looked at.

What bothers me, and this isn't directed at you, just a general observation, is that many owners of these specific breeds, such as pit bulls, will say things like "My sweetie would never hurt a fly!" and compare them to smaller, physically weaker breeds. And, to me, that smacks of denial. I have nothing against anyone owning these breeds in general. But, I would hope that anyone who does would always be aware of the potential dangers (as any dog owner should), and that because their breed is bigger and stronger, that risk is even greater, thus their responsibility is even greater. And, whenever this issue comes up, there's always at least one post like that. And it is statements like that that made me rethink the position to begin with. This statement goes for all dog owners regardless of breed: I don't think a great percentage of them are fully aware the dangers involved. And, because of certain physical traits, some dogs are bigger and more powerful and able to inflict greater damage a greater percent of the time.

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

96. Yes... but the problem that I have with that is...

owners or others may tend to get lazy and 'assume' that certain breeds are "SAFE". In reality, ALL dogs pose a threat.

Again, look and see that even a 4 LB pomeranian can kill an infant if not properly supervised.

MY point is, that family would likely not have left a 70 LB pit alone with that infant. If properly educated, one knows that ALL dogs are in need of proper training and supervision.

Legislation will never change that. And the resounding theme must be that ALL dogs must be properly trained, cared-for and supervised - regardless of breed. If ANY dog attacks, it must be put down - just not the whole breed.

[Pithlet]

97. It's a good point

Another problem with breed specific laws is that it ignores that not all big dangerous dogs are pure bred. And, not all idiotic dog owners own pure bred dogs.

But, I don't see that banning a specific breed (with grandfather rights) is such a violation of rights, and here is why: If enough incidences happen with a particular breed (I'm not stating that as fact, just hypothetical) then I wouldn't think that it was completely out of bounds for a community to insist that no further members of that breed are allowed there. There is no reason why a person absolutely HAS to have that particular breed, and no other. It is not an unreasonable restriction to ask a person to consider another dog outside of that particular breed. That is why, while I wouldn't fight for such legislation, I will also not ago along with the assertion that such a law is an egregious violation of a person's rights. Get a mutt. Rescue a mixed breed from the pound. Pure bred dogs are highly overrated anyway.

[Modem Butterfly]

83. I had liquor poured down my throat when I was a kid

My mother never believed me, but it's true.

[Modem Butterfly]

72. It's the attitude that others are responsible for your comfort

As I suggested previously, try talking to your neighbor and meeting the dog. Dogs evolved to put on a big show of aggression when they're really scared out of their wits (so did humans, for that matter). Try meeting the animal on more neutral turf. You might find the animal isn't as scary as you thought. If nothing else, meeting you in a setting other than behind a fence might make the animal a bit calmer the next time you meet each other.

[Pithlet]

74. No. It is not.

I don't feel anyone is responsible for my comfort. I don't see how being frightened by a dog makes me all that unreasonable.

[Modem Butterfly]

81. "We shouldn't have to live this way"

That's the bottom line, for me. Being frightened is one thing, deciding that someone else needs to change their actions (get rid of their dogs) so you're not frightened is another.

[Pithlet]

85. It isn't just about being frightened

It is about being at risk. If my neighbor is irresponsible with their dog, it could result in grievous bodily harm or death. I do think I have a genuine reason to be scared. All it takes is one time forgetting to latch the gate, and I or my kids could be toast. Is the right to own such a dog more important than my safety? You can agree or disagree with any answer to that question, but it is a valid question. I don't think you can say that my fears are unwarranted.

I will say that I have never fought for or supported a ban on any particular breed. And I really don't think that people should have their dogs taken away from them if they've done nothing wrong. I stated that in the beginning, and I'm restating it here because I think there is some misunderstanding.

[DS1]

49. Punishing the owners can only happen ~after~ a child has his/her face

ripped off. It doesn't really matter to the child what happens after that point. After a ban takes effect the dog can live out it's natural life, and babies have to be shipped out of town or destroyed - so don't let them get preggers.

[Modem Butterfly]

55. But stopping negligent and/or deliberately cruel dog owners...

... can happen NOW, and maybe would happen a bit sooner if people weren't so enchanted with the idea of just getting rid of breeds they perceive as dangerous.

[DS1]

57. Enforced how?

Do we have to spy on our neighbors to make sure they aren't beating their dogs? Hello police state, best to just get rid of them altogether.

[Modem Butterfly]

62. Stop dog fighting rings, regulate backyard breeders...

...remove dogs who are starved or tortured. Create a dog licensing system and refuse to license anyone who has a history of animal cruelty and abuse. Increase the fines for leash laws and "nuisance" dogs. Empower local animal control to stop the problem before it becomes a crisis. Preventing people from having one specific breed will just drive the cruel and ignorant to other breeds.

[Cyndee_Lou_Who]

75. It's notable that the total number of fatalities has NOT increased

despite the fact that there are more pits out there than in previous years. It's a dynamic statistic. If pits are banned, another breed will take its place. Shepards? Mastiffs? Bulldogs? Should we just keep banning the breed that tops the list? That's what I just don't get.

[Balbus]

93. We can start with these next!

Lab mixes
Husky mixes
German Sheperds
Great Danes
Airedale Terriers whatever that is.

Pretty soon we'll run out of dogs and then we can start on cats :P

[Coventina]

100. How do you enforce a breed ban without becoming a police state?

Do we have to spy on our neighbors to see what their dog looks like?
Does it vaguely resemble a "pit bull", however that ends up becoming defined?

Will owners of mixed breeds have their pets hauled off because they have boxer or bulldog in their ancestry, and can't prove it's not "pit bull"?

Sounds pretty totalitarian to me.

[LeftyMom]

98. That's not always how a ban works

I read a news story from Denver (I think, it was some place in CO) where a ban on pit pulls had just went into effect and people were forced to moove, give thier animals to families somewhere else or have them confiscated and put to sleep. This was within the past few weeks.

[Pithlet]

99. I don't think all bans require that, though.

Any ban that did would be wrong. I do think that is wrong.

[DS1]

51. dupe

dupe

[Balbus]

54. Is this what Free Republic is like??

All this painting with a broad brush, generalizations and narrow-mindedness makes it sound like another place I've been told about.