tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post2119046225808617503..comments2024-03-26T22:16:26.572-04:00Comments on Terrierman's Daily Dose: A "Responsible Pit Bull Owner" Law?PBurnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05781540805883519064noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-2102565848972172572009-08-17T08:04:59.495-04:002009-08-17T08:04:59.495-04:00"but to keep them out of the hands of casual ..."but to keep them out of the hands of casual pet owners, thugs, fools, kids, and people who are not very responsible."<br /><br /><br />I think that we end up with this at the end again. As the situation is such a mess( and it is a MESS, ask the dogs, or at least spend some time imagining what they might say), this is the only thing that is going to work better in future, and we all have to start with where we are right now. And as nice as civil liberty is, sanity should come first when it comes to handling"potentially" dangerous animals. Potentially dangerous does not mean bad, it just means be careful and responsible.<br /><br />Jonathan CTJonathan Setterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07940807465021506097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-37441421130837929852009-08-17T07:54:04.880-04:002009-08-17T07:54:04.880-04:00btoellner -
Again, and again and again, you have ...btoellner -<br /><br />Again, and again and again, you have FAILED to read the Boston law even when told to, and the link is provided.<br /><br />Now you accuse me of "defending" the Boson law which make clear you have not even READ this post. <br /><br />Amazing. <br /><br />Your time on this thread is OVER. You have become a time-waster.<br /><br />Boston has NOT banned Pit Bulls, no thanks to people like you who cannot seem to understand that a ban was in the works in Boston. <br /><br />Thank God someone in Boston figured out a middle way and the dog is still legal there. <br /><br />P.PBurnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05781540805883519064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-30062658745498819282009-08-16T23:22:48.315-04:002009-08-16T23:22:48.315-04:00I guess Patrick you need to define "working&q...I guess Patrick you need to define "working" --because in all of your posts, you've never mentioned an actual result in terms of shelter kill rates or in bite rates. <br /><br />I have.<br /><br />While it is possible that Boston has had success with an ordinance where every other city that has tried it has failed, it certainly doesn't seem probable. <br /><br />And yes, pit bulls have a problem...and much of it is centered around the reality that people like you, and places like Boston, think that it is important to treat them differently, creating a stigma that shouldn't exist and restrictions that shouldn't either. And yet you use an outcome that comes from an ordinance that you think makes sense, and use that outcome to promote the law itself. <br /><br />So let's see the Boston's results following the passing of the ordinance.<br /><br />How are total bite numbers?<br />Shelter euthanasia numbers?<br />Animal control costs?<br /><br />At the very least you should know these numbers if you're going to promote the ordinance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-71457378785343790652009-08-16T22:30:01.945-04:002009-08-16T22:30:01.945-04:00Actually, btoellner, YOU are talking about theory....Actually, btoellner, YOU are talking about theory. <br /><br />I am talking about BOSTON. Not some other city. Boston. <br /><br />Boston, from what I can tell, seems to be fine with the law IN REALITY. <br /><br />As for killing Pit Bulls, it is done in every city in America, everyday. You want dead Pit Bulls? How many do you want? You want live Pit Bulls? How many do you want? That's the problem right there: the number of Pit Bulls in the world FAR exceeds the desire of people to actually own them. People want PUPPIES. When those puppies turn into DOGS, however, then the trouble begins. And when the puppies turn into Pit Bulls, the problems are compounded, aren't they? <br /><br /><br />P.PBurnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05781540805883519064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-20281238648517247552009-08-16T22:06:10.074-04:002009-08-16T22:06:10.074-04:00See, the difference here is that you're talkin...See, the difference here is that you're talking about how the law should work IN THEORY and I'm talking about how it works in the real world.<br /><br />I live in one of only a handful of cities in the country that has a law that mandates the spay/neuter of pit bulls -- but the statistics in others resemble the ones in our city.<br /><br />You said: <br />"People who breed dogs and fight dogs are not necessarily the same people, and a fighting dog is not fought as a puppy, but as an adult. What that means is that illegal breeding of unlicensed Pit Bulls in Boston is likely to be found out, as there is a long time between birth and battle."<br /><br />All "true". However, in a mandatory spay/neuter world, the puppies are found out before "battle" and taken to the shelter and killed/euthanized. Yet the vast majority of them were never going to be used for fighting. They were healthy, well-cared for dogs, and they were killed. For no reason other than the law being in place. <br /><br />In Kansas City, MO -- where I live, we are now killing for 3 years running 80% more pit bulls after the law was passed than before. And these dogs aren't used for fighting....while dog fighting does exist here, there hasn't been a dog fighting bust in the city in forever. In Little Rock, they saw a 44% increase in pit bulls killed in the shelter in their first 1/2 year with the ordinance.<br /><br />They're just killed. Because they have balls.<br /><br />Meanwhile, let's say you're a rescue trying to adopt out a pit bull to one of these people in an apartment -- but because you're trying to obey the law, you are making them get their landlord to submit a letter, jump through a few hoops, etc. <br /><br />They decide the heck with the nonsense, there's a guy with an ad on Craigslist and isn't going to make me deal with the "rules". So he buy one from him, and doesn't adopt one. <br /><br />So now another dog get killed at the shelter instead of adopted, we've encouraged the backyard breeding market because we can't possibly enforce the law, and the new guy has an unaltered dog. <br /><br />And we still haven't solved a single bit of the problem, but we're sure killing alot of dogs.<br /><br />It's not a game Patrick. It's not a game to see what will happen if we try this. We're killing family pets. There are a lot of places that are having tremendous success in dealing with problems dogs and owners, and none of them even vaguely look like what Boston's law looks like...and all of the ones that look like Boston cause a lot more problems than they solve.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-18527761636417144292009-08-16T21:02:00.658-04:002009-08-16T21:02:00.658-04:00btoellner --
Again, READ THE BOSTON LAW.
Please...btoellner -- <br /><br />Again, READ THE BOSTON LAW. <br />Please read it! <br /><br />The law does NOT disallow people who rent from owning a Pit Bull. It simply says that anyone who owns a Pit Bull who rents has to have a note from his or her landlord saying it's OK to have a Pit Bull. There is even a provision to OK granting a dog owner a Pit Bull license if the landlord does not answer a letter. READ THE LAW!<br /><br />People who breed dogs and fight dogs are not necessarily the same people, and a fighting dog is not fought as a puppy, but as an adult. What that means is that illegal breeding of unlicensed Pit Bulls in Boston is likely to be found out, as there is a long time between birth and battle. <br /><br />And YES, police DO notice Pit Bulls more than other dogs (that is true for all people) and there WILL be differential license checking. <br /><br />In some ways, I imagine owning a Pit Bull in Boston is a bit like my owning an old 1957 Chevrolet Belair in Washington, D.C. I loved that car despite the fact that it was a bit more difficult to park and a lot more visual than your average Toyota. But because it was more difficult to park, and because it got noticed by cops a lot more ("Ooooh, look at the cool old car!") it also got more tickets if I parked illegally. Rule One of owning an old car in great shape: You better park it legally. I imagine the same sort of rule holds true for Pit Bull owners in Boston. The Boston law has been in effect for a number of years now, and I have not found a lot of complaints saying: 1) it is not working, or; 2) that it has imposed undue burdens or hassles on Pit Bull owners. <br /><br />P.PBurnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05781540805883519064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-2223727400589015952009-08-16T20:45:21.679-04:002009-08-16T20:45:21.679-04:00tardyfish
First Question: Why do people choose ...tardyfish <br /><br />First Question: Why do people choose absurd handles instead of their real names? What are you hiding?<br /><br />OK, having said that, the world is not all pure positive, is it. You see the Boston law as "punitive." OK. I get that. I'm not sure it's actually true, however. I have to have a license to own a gun, but but not a bow and arrow. I have to get a license to drive a car, but not a bicycle. I have to have a license to own a hawk, but not a parrot or a finch. <br /><br />And why? Simple: Bows and arrows are not used in a lot of crimes, and do not require much police oversight. <br /><br />Bicycles wrecks rarely kill anyone but the rider, and rarely cause property damage. <br /><br />The lack of licensing for parrots is less clear, but the differential results are very illuminating. <br /><br />Parrots are horribly abused all the time BECAUSE there is no licensing and owning one is a simple "cash and carry" kind of thing. People who know NOTHING buy parrots, and then kill them or torture them through ignorance and negligence. <br /><br />With hawks and falcons, however, licensing is required and real knowledge (there is a required two-year apprenticeship). As a result, very few knuckle-draggers own hawks, falcons and eagles, and the most that are being flown are living the life of Reilly. <br /><br />As I said earlier, I agree that a muzzle is over-kill. But higher licensing fees? <br /><br />You want to whine about $30? <br /><br />OK. <br /><br />Here's a question: Why should everyone else in the dog world have to subsidize all the animal control burdens your breed puts on the system? Hunting licenses are not all one price, driver's licenses are not all one price, vehicle taxes are not all one price, etc. Why do you think Pit Bull owners should not be required to pay their fair share of the costs they impose on the state? A truck on the highway pays a $2 toll where a car pays 50 cents. <br /><br />P.PBurnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05781540805883519064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-2464153070988910822009-08-16T20:24:24.493-04:002009-08-16T20:24:24.493-04:00Keri, AGAIN, read the Boston law. You can disagre...Keri, AGAIN, read the Boston law. You can disagree with it (no problem there), but the law defines the dogs covered pretty well, and if you think your dog is not covered there are clear ways to demonstrate that.<br /><br />As for the notion that the Pit Bull is a terrier, it is not. The pit bull, as we know it today, is the same molosser dog we can see in Roman art long before terriers ecen existed (terriers are not an old breed). <br /><br />I know a LOT about terriers, a fair amount about Pits, and there really is not historical intersection despite the many claims (repeated from one nonsense history to another). Here's hint: a Catbird has no cat in it, a Dogfish has no dog in it, and the Porcupine Caribou herd has no porcupine in it. The "terrier" addition was tossed in to dog descrioptions by dog dealers and dog fighting men wnho wanted suggest to the dogs their dogs were actually game (i.e. that they would bite if it go to it). A lot of terriers have little or no terrier in them, including the Russian Terrier and the Aireddale (which is almost pure Otterhound).<br /><br />Your history is a bit mixed up, but the way. As I note in a post on this blog, the American Pit Bull Terrier is not American, is not a terrier, and was never used in the pits. See "What the Hell is an American Staffordshire Terrier" on this blog for the real history. <br /><br />P.PBurnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05781540805883519064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-86362096786346616252009-08-14T21:39:49.467-04:002009-08-14T21:39:49.467-04:00P
You asked what laws we could put up with to sav...P <br><br />You asked what laws we could put up with to save a breed. NONE focused on that breed. I don't care about 'saving' a breed. I care about laws that are fair. If I have a pit, and you have a cana corsa there is no logical reason I should have any more burden than you. We both may need to have a higher burden than the pug next door though. I don't care if inner city kids want pits today because thay look tough and have a reputation, I care that they are well socialized and cared for and requireing someone to get a licence will do NOTHING to help that. Yes, they may reduce the number of pits, who cares, pits are not the problem. before you say they do more damage, site someting, a study normalized for numbers and the way the dog in question was raised because I don't believe it. Just because 'everybody knows it' dosen't make it so. Re the boston law, you say it makes pits only available to very responsible owners, but it then puts very high burdens on people who by design are 'very responsible'Jacobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13787538619431861895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-69379138688705786722009-08-14T19:05:33.606-04:002009-08-14T19:05:33.606-04:00Sorry, forgot to add the link:
Molosser DogsSorry, forgot to add the link:<br /><br /><a href="http://molosserdogs.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.3296" rel="nofollow">Molosser Dogs</a>LibraryRathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00284658024751446001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-87183428054558922722009-08-14T18:55:54.794-04:002009-08-14T18:55:54.794-04:00The way these laws, and you, Mr. Burns, are defini...The way these laws, and you, Mr. Burns, are defining "pit bulls", there is no way to definitively say whether they are descended from molosser breeds or not. And besides, from what you've been saying I didn't think that genetic lineage was the important point here, but only the way the dog physically looks? Or are you saying that all molossers and any dog that remotely looks like them are pit bulls? <br /><br /> The American Pit Bull Terrier, as far as most reliable information about the history of the breed goes, is a cross between various terrier breeds and bulldogs. They are products of crossing molosser breeds with terriers. I am aware of the history.<br /><br />American Pit Bull Terriers were originally and historically bred first for baiting bulls. Bull-baiting was done as a way to control the animals awaiting slaughter, and as a blood sport. When bull baiting was outlawed, dog fighting became popular. This breed was not purposefully bred for biting and holding humans. Individuals that did bite humans were summarily destroyed. When dog fighting was outlawed, they became the preferred dog of ranchers and farmers, were called "nanny dogs" because of their tolerance of children, and were a popular and cherished family pet. Check out the link at bottom for an extensive list of molosser dogs. If we're going to have restrictions because they're molossers, we'd better restrict them all (oh wait, but they're all pit bulls, so that's an oxymoron) <br /><br />I do agree with you that the age and home stipulations are reasonable, but if those regulations are going to exist they should exist for all dogs and all owners. After all, a Lab deserves a responsible owner as much as a pit bull does.<br /><br />On everything else, I agree with btnoellner. The thugs will move on to other breeds. Pit bulls weren't the asshole breed of choice in the 70s.. that was the Dobie. There are plenty of other scary looking dogs for them to victimize. These kinds of laws won't prevent that.LibraryRathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00284658024751446001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-38788031414703568512009-08-14T18:29:18.765-04:002009-08-14T18:29:18.765-04:00I understand the spirit of the Boston law. Theoret...I understand the spirit of the Boston law. Theoretically, it should cut down or eliminate the irresponsible knuckleheads who own pit bulls for all the wrong reasons. As a pit bull lover, I'm all about laws that only allow these dogs to go to responsible, loving homes. As a lover of children, I'd also embrace laws that prevented people like the pregnant, chain-smoking teenager I saw the other day from raising children. Both are utopian fantasies with the best of intentions and the most disasterous of results.<br /><br />Heather Houlahan has already provided the reasons why, and I'd like to add to that by pointing out what a pain in the ass it would be if I couldn't take my pit bull for a walk. Pits rival Labradors for maintaining puppy energy levels well into old age. Muzzle her? Seeing a pit bull with a muzzle only reinforces negative breed stereotypes. When I take my pit on a walk and she licks a toddler's face or gently takes a treat from someone's hand, she advances the reputation of the breed.<br /><br />As for stats, facts, and figures, I would hope that liberal thinkers would put more effort into parsing them. America's prison system is brimming with black men, and we execute a disproportinate number of black men to white men. The simple-minded Republican answer is that it's because black men commit more crimes. The harder answer is that the criminal justice system is rife with institutional racism, and that black people are overwhelmingly poor. Let's give pits the same benefit of the doubt.<br /><br />Boston's law is punitive. It doesn't reward responsible pit bull owners, it punishes them by making dog ownership difficult, thereby hobbling their relationship with their dog. My girl is a saint, and I've put a lot of time and effort into training her till she's bullet-proof. She doesn't deserve a muzzle, and I don't deserve higher licensing fees.Chelsea Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16220496733590957344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-14384298285126018352009-08-14T16:44:57.481-04:002009-08-14T16:44:57.481-04:00Patrick,
At this point there is little to say oth...Patrick,<br /><br />At this point there is little to say other than you clearly don't have any idea of how laws like this work, and the practical application of these laws. <br /><br />1) Yes, I admitted that this one is the only one that is about the owner, not the dog, and is probably a good law across the board. Adults own dogs. Children's parents own dogs. This one just makes sense.<br /><br />2) Dogs of every breed end up in shelters because people adopt in haste, and abandon at their leisure. This isn't a pit bull specific issue...nor should it be treated as one. But disallowing people who rent from owning dogs would be VERY problematic -- particularly in large cities - -where housing prices are high and many people, including most young professional who are active and generally make great dog owners, rent.<br /><br />3) Licensing compliance for dogs in nearly all US cities runs between 10-20%. Raising licensing fees usually makes that number go down, not up. The problem is less that people are cheap bastards, but more that the laws are unenforcable and people don't feel like there is any benefit to paying the bill...which is often too difficult to do. If we want any type of licensing to increase, we must remove the barriers to doing so, not add them, and provide animal control service vs focusing solely on punishing people. <br /><br />4)I'm laughing at the idea that people who are trying to sustain a dog fighting ring are going to obey any type of spay/neuter law for dogs. They're engaging in a felony activity. The barely criminal mandatory spay/neuter law isn't going to stop them...and I'd love for you to provide an example where it does. The real result of this is that people who cannot afford altering their dog (which is the biggest barrier for most) will not, and then when they get caught, the dog will be confiscated and killed at the shelter and shelter killing increases. You deal with these people by offering low cost spay/neuter services. You deal with dog fighters with SWAT teams...not dog laws.<br /><br />5) Without any type of licensing compliance, this is going to be completely unenforcable because you'll nave no way to enforce it and prove the ownership. And if the vast majority of US cities can't get licensing compliance above 20%, then there will be no way to even come close to handling this...so it will be an effort in futility, with wasted resources that should be dealing with the yahoos that are causing the problems in the first place. <br /><br />In the world where enforcement resources are not infinite, you have to work on practical solutions to solving problems - and anything that wastes resources is not that.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the entire thing is based on the faulty notion that there is some genetic issue to target 'pit bulls' in the first place. If it's a good policy, then it should be applied to all dog owners of all dog breeds -- if it's not, then it should apply to any of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-22344284140257116292009-08-14T16:20:47.156-04:002009-08-14T16:20:47.156-04:00Keri, I am not sure how much you know about moloss...Keri, I am not sure how much you know about molosser breeds, but YES, the original function of a molosser breed is to STOP men and animals by biting them if need be. Molosser dogs are guard dogs and they are game dogs. This is their function, and they have been doing this for a hell of a long time (and they are still doing it). <br /><br />For a pretty detailed American-centered history about all this, see >> "What the Hell is an American Staffordshire Terrier" on this blog at >> http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2006/05/what-hell-is-american-staffordshire.html<br /><br />P.PBurnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05781540805883519064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-13605335711679169032009-08-14T16:14:30.807-04:002009-08-14T16:14:30.807-04:00btoellner --
Your claim that the Boston law is mo...btoellner --<br /><br />Your claim that the Boston law is mostly about the dog rather than the people who own the dog is absurd upon even cursory investigation of the law. In fact, the Boston law is almost entirely about the owner.<br /><br />1. The person has to be over age 18 -- no kids. Dogs deserve to have owners who are stable and responsible enough to take care fo their life-long needs. Most folks under age 18 are not, and that is doubly true for a Pit Bull.<br /><br />2. The person has to either own their own home or have an OK from a landlord to have a Pit Bull. This ends the all too common practice of people getting Pit Bulls in haste and abandoning them at leisure. Most Pits end up in rescue because of unstable housing situations when they are acquired by young people who think dogs are a disposable object. This section of the law discourages that notion.<br /><br />3. The person has to pay a higher fee. Pit Bulls put a disproportionate strain on animal control. Not only does this section of the law help offset the cost, but it is a small discouragement for cheap bastards who think they might want to get a Pit Bull. If you cannot afford $50 a year to license a dog, you cannot to give proper veterinary care, shelter and food to ANY dog.<br /><br />4. The dog has to be spayed, which means the owner cannot get a Pit Bull as part of a "get rich quick" scheme. Lord knows that's been done enough times. If there is not a huge pool of cheap and easy to get dogs, it's much harder to sustain a dog fighting ring.<br /><br />5. The owner cannot transfer ownership of a dog without telling the City. This is to prevent liars, cheats, and dog fighters from worming around the law. This restriction on the owner (not the dog) means that the dog cannot be pushed back into a life of battery and instability.<br /><br />Bottom line: outside of the muzzle and signage sections of the Boston law, it's actually about the OWNER. <br /><br />I object to the muzzle and the signage sections. That is over-kill. <br /><br />On the other hand neither a muzzle nor a sign hurts the dog at all. I object to this section of the law, but I am not sure any of my dogs would (if they could talk). <br /><br /><br />P.PBurnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05781540805883519064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-60064556851945536892009-08-14T15:53:57.894-04:002009-08-14T15:53:57.894-04:00Jacob, if you have registration papers for both th...Jacob, if you have registration papers for both the dam and sire of your dog, you do not have to register your dog AT ALL in Boston. <br /><br />If you get a note from a vet saying that your dog is not a Pit Bull of any kind, you do not have to get a special registration for your dog in Boston at all. <br /><br />And even if you DO have to register your dog, the "big deal" is about $30 more and proof you either own your own home OR your landlord says you can have a dog. <br /><br />WHAT IS THE PROBLEM THERE??<br /><br />READ THE LAW at the link. <br /><br />I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "the law applies retroactively." That is a nonsensical statmement. <br /><br />Again, READ THE LAW at the link.<br /><br />Whatever you imagine may happen in the future is, by definition, imaginary. <br /><br />All I know is that RIGHT NOW, Pit Bull bans are going in all over. <br /><br />They are banned in the UK and in many other European countries and increasing numbers of U.S. cities. <br /><br />Putting your fingers in your ear and chanting is not a solution that is working for the dogs, is it?<br /><br />YES, the problem is mostly up the leash. <br /><br />So what?<br /><br />Right now the problem is also disproportinately centered on Pit Bulls, which makes those dogs susceptible to a complete BAN. <br /><br />Why should THEY pay the price because a few loud and whiney people object to paying a few bucks more to get a license? Do you put such a minor inconvenience over the life of a dog? Over the existence of a breed? <br /><br />If other large dog breeds were biting people equal to Pit Bulls, Pit Bulls would not be singled out, would they? But, in fact, Pit Bulls DO bite more people more often, and so their OWNERS are up for special attention and licensing. <br /><br />So what? What's the problem? <br /><br />Question for you: Assuming you had a Pit Bull, and AFTER actually reading the Boston law, what part of this could you NOT comply with very, very easily?<br /><br />Do you not have permission to have a dog? Do you not have $30? Do you not know how to put a muzzle on a dog? What is it?<br /><br />And then, do you think your unwillingness to stand for the dog should mean the dog is BANNED in your city and others across the U.S?<br /><br />P.PBurnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05781540805883519064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-2856675533364516392009-08-14T15:11:56.921-04:002009-08-14T15:11:56.921-04:00The thing is none of these laws are about the peop...The thing is none of these laws are about the people, they're all about the dogs. Altering, muzzling, number of dogs, licensing fees, signage, etc - -none of this is about the people. Only the no one under 18 can own one has anything to do with owners.<br /><br />And if you do it for pit bulls, and maybe you DO succeed in getting pit bulls out of yahoos hands, but then they just end up with other types of dogs (akitas, chows, mastiffs, GSDs, etc) and are still yahoos -- we've done nothing to change their yahoo status.<br /><br />They're just yahoos with a different type of dog.<br /><br />So if you really want to do something, do what cities that are successful at dealing with this are doing instead of failed models like this:<br /><br />Reckless Dog Owner Laws/3 strikes and you're out laws -- violate dog ordinances 3x in a 2 year period and you are prohibited from owning a dog.<br /><br />Responsible restrictive tethering ordinances -- if your dog is being used as a lawn ornament, that's who we're targeting here.<br /><br />If you've been involved in a violent felony activity, you cannot own an unaltered dog (this allows them to keep dogs as a part of prison dog programs)<br /><br />Just some ideas.<br /><br />But targeting the dogs is just plain failed policy. And has been everywhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-51696309629456432012009-08-14T14:19:01.297-04:002009-08-14T14:19:01.297-04:00"A dog that bites and that looks like a Pit B..."A dog that bites and that looks like a Pit Bull is a Pit Bull in form AND function. It is "the real deal," like it or not."<br /><br />So, the function of pit bulls is to bite people? Historically, they were not bred to do that. Sure some yokels recently have decided that they are big and scary looking and good for intimidation and protection, but to extrapolate that to all, or even most, short haired blocky headed dogs on the planet? That's ridiculous. And a Boxer is a Boxer only as long as it doesn't bite anyone? And if it does and someone calls it a "pit bull", then that's what it is? That doesn't make any sense at all. To take another quote from you, "You can call a rat a sparrow, but it doesn't make it so". To base laws and regulations on the way something looks is always a bad idea. We tried that in this country with people, and remember how that turned out?<br /><br />I agree that dog owners in general should be responsible with, for, and to their animals. That goes for EVERYONE, not just "pit bull" owners, shepherd owners, terrier owners. Why not make it so ALL dogs have to be muzzled or crated outside the home of the owner? That would certainly reduce the number of bites. But to do that would most likely severely reduce the quality of life of the dogs, and make owning them not very much fun anymore. Imagine not being able to take your dogs out to the park for a walk without having to put a cage on their muzzle.<br /><br />I am all for responsible ownership, and licensing fees. I'm all for reducing the number of DOG attacks on people and animals. To focus only on one group of dogs, under the dubious notion that they are the biggest "problem", has proven to do NOTHING to improve the situation, either for humans or dogs.<br /><br />(sorry if this gets sent to you twice, but there's something wonky with my Internet connection today)LibraryRathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00284658024751446001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-74739781007046293012009-08-14T14:08:08.099-04:002009-08-14T14:08:08.099-04:00The problem with a law that targets a dog that loo...The problem with a law that targets a dog that looks like a pit and acts like a pit is in enforcement. Do I register my lab boxer cross that I have papers for both parents when I bring it home? It dosn't look like a pit, it dosn't act like a pit, except it is a dog and they all act like dogs. When does it become a 'pit'? When have I broken the law? after the dog attacks. This is a circular situation where the law applies retroactively. Not good. The solution is some quantifiable critera. if the dog weighs more than 40lb you need a licence. By focusing on pits you miss the point altogether. Pits are not the problem, even if they are present in most of the problems. To focus on them is to wast everyone's time because they will fall out of favor eventualy and we will have a 'problem' with another 'breed'. Eventualy we will be back to all dogs over X weight but only after setting up a law to cover everything else but weight.<br /><br />Jacob L'EtoileJacobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13787538619431861895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-41481865118139261272009-08-14T14:02:21.322-04:002009-08-14T14:02:21.322-04:00btoellner --
You are missing it. Yes, PEOPLE are...btoellner --<br /><br />You are missing it. Yes, PEOPLE are most of the problem, and that is why you screen people. <br /><br />The shallow-brained, short-dicked, knuckle headed knuckle draggers are the problem. <br /><br />But they are not attracted to just ANY dog, are they? No. They are attracted to large molosser breeds because they WANT a dog that looks tough and scary. They want a Pit Bull. <br /><br />The tighter (or if you prefer, enhanced) licensing requirements means that fools, ignorants, kids, and the unprepared are slowed down, if not thwarted in their attempt to acquire a Pit Bull. Registration is not much of a problem for someone who is responsible, but it is for fools, kids and people in unstable homes.<br /><br />YES, the problem is "up the leash." That's why you focus there and require folks do do more to prove they are "Pit Bull worthy." <br /><br />PPBurnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05781540805883519064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-29317138287878428632009-08-14T12:45:24.115-04:002009-08-14T12:45:24.115-04:00But see, that's the problem and why none of th...But see, that's the problem and why none of the laws here work.<br /><br />The idea that one type or group of dogs should be targeted is based on the idea that they are somehow genetically linked and that due to their genetics, need certain restrictions.<br /><br />Without the genetic linking, there is no reason to do a breed or type-specific law.<br /><br />If your goal is to target the yahoos, you don't do it with laws that require people who aren't yahoos to have to jump through a series of hoops to keep their dogs. You also don't do it by targeting a type of dog but leaving the yahoo alone, because the yahoo is a yahoo whether they own a pit bull, a german shepherd or a doberman.<br /><br />The only way to solve the problem is by targeting yahoos...which none of these laws adequately do...which is why they have failed everywhere they have been tried.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-72750189166824927002009-08-14T12:39:26.559-04:002009-08-14T12:39:26.559-04:00btoellner --
I am not in disagreement that a mu...btoellner -- <br /><br />I am not in disagreement that a mutt that looks like a Pit Bull is going to be called a Pit Bull. Because you know what? It is! The same is true for a dog that looks like a Lab -- it's a Lab. The same for a dog that looks like a German Shepherd -- it's a German Shepherd. Ditto for crosses of the same.<br /><br />The notion that a dog breed is a piece of paper needs to be shelved. A dog is what a dog looks like OR what it does. You can call a rat a sparrow, but it does not make it so. A dog that bites and that looks like a Pit Bull is a Pit Bull in form AND function. It is "the real deal," like it or not.<br /><br />As for genetics, I will not argue the point. I think it's a bit funny to argue that Pit Bulls have now devolved into big lap dogs -- it's like saying your Ferrari has no engine. That's good? OK, I guess it is in the modern world. With this breed and with most molosser breeds, I am more than OK with most people breeding only for form. No problem.<br /><br />But the question of whether there is a genetic thread to the disproportionate number of Pit Bull attacks on dogs and people is actually irelevant. The only thing that matters is that these attacks occur, and whether their numbers can reasonably and predictably be reduced by enforced responsibility through licensing and regulation. That's the question.<br /><br />You say the issue is entirely (or mostly) about how the dog is raised, cared for, socialized, etc. <br /><br />I would 100% AGREE. <br /><br />In fact, that's why sticter licensing will probably work -- it will mean that there will be less of a chance that young yahoos get dogs and keep dogs. <br /><br />It will mean that a higher percentage of Pit Bull owners will live in stable homes and understand the basic needs of their dogs. <br /><br />All of this is GOOD. In fact, this is the REAL BENEFIT to the dogs of a higher or more restrictive form of licensing. <br /><br />And, for the record, I would like to see this kind of licensing for almost ALL dogs. I have never seen a dog suffer because its owner had too much responsibility. <br /><br />P.PBurnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05781540805883519064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-67025768628187584762009-08-14T12:32:19.373-04:002009-08-14T12:32:19.373-04:00BT,
I'm glad you've delved into this stud...BT,<br /><br />I'm glad you've delved into this study as you have, and you have drawn your own conclusions. The author of the study in question outlined the specifics that he used for inclusion in the study in the first paragraph, and they seemed pretty straightforward to me. We can agree, I hope, to disagree on the conclusions. <br /><br />I submit that a serious dog attack by anything OTHER than a pit bull would still be news that would sell papers, and therefore it would be reported. Reporters often sit next to police scanners, and they run out to incident scenes of all types. I find it hard to believe that if a reporter went to a dog attack scene and the dog in question wasn't a pit bull, that they would not report the story. <br /><br />SeahorseSeahorsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00133454380103294333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-60014962548528454622009-08-14T12:18:37.104-04:002009-08-14T12:18:37.104-04:00Patrick,
A couple of points:
1) You say that pol...Patrick,<br /><br />A couple of points:<br /><br />1) You say that police and animal control officers are now worse at identifying pit bulls than they are other breeds -- and that is likely true. But overall, they're really not all that good at it. Just a couple of weeks ago a dog that is pretty clearly a white boxer was removed from an Ohio city because it was declared to be a pit bull. <br /><br />http://www.cleveland.com/crime/index.ssf/2009/08/dog_tasered_in_lakewood_gets_b.html<br /><br />By and large, breed identification has nothing at all to do with genetics, but has everything to do with very rough, generic looks that can be quickly categorized...which is in part why nearly every black dog at a shelter becomes a "lab mix", every short haired dog becomes a "pit bull mix" and every longer-haired dog is a "shepherd mix" -- even though they likely have no true genetic link to those actual breeds at all. These vague categorizations really call into question whether any of the dog bite statistics have any accuracy at all when it comes to actual genetics involved --and I'd say the same thing if German Shepherds were leading the pack, or Labs for that matter...which if you look at almost any city in the country's dog bite stats, those will be the top 3 breeds. Any time you have a huge lumping of dogs together that are generally classified as something -- that's going to happen. <br /><br />2) So even if the dog bite stats were valid (they're not) - and even if pit bulls were somehow "proven" to be a top biter/attacker, whatever...it still wouldn't prove a genetic causal effect. Let's say that we did a study that 3 out of every 4 dogs that are chained as their primary form of containment bit someone in their lifetime. Then let's do another study and determine that 9 out of every 10 pit bulls was chained for their lifetime, but only 2 out of every 10 labs were. Then we did a determination that pit bulls were more likely to bite than labs. Would it be because they were pit bulls? Or because they were chained? <br /><br />Most actual science has deemed there to not be a genetic, causal relationship between bites and breed. The causal relationship is more tied to how the dog is raised, contained, and cared for. <br /><br />And until we start focusing on THAT, the problem will never go away....and it disappoints me that you would perpetuate the myth....you really should know better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7684843.post-85191046525105205072009-08-14T11:45:27.535-04:002009-08-14T11:45:27.535-04:00Heather - That was me being a royal idiot and not ...Heather - That was me being a royal idiot and not thinking before I pressed "Submit." Dunce cap pour moi /\ Yes it was Kenton and it was last year, so definitely not within your parameters.<br /><br />A few months back, my local paper had a poll open to subscribers that asked them if they would snitch to the law if you had a neighbor with a pit bull-type dog. The responses pretty much ran the entire gamut, from "No, they have a right to own a dog" to "Only if it acts aggressive" to "OMG KILL IT WITH FIRE." Can't remember the majority vote though.<br /><br />Word verification is "shilt"...where do they come up with these things?!Viateciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08523551407472141202noreply@blogger.com