# Should we ban some breeds?



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

Please vote. It's not just pit bull dogs, many other breeds are affected and BSL should be fought any time you have the chance...
CTV Montreal - Montreal News, Quebec, Entertainment, Sports, Lottery Results, Traffic, Weather, Contests

On the right side.


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

Right now:
Yes - 48%
No - 52%


----------



## DangerousBeauty (Jul 8, 2010)

Ban from what? For what reasons?


----------



## W.Oliver (Aug 26, 2007)

No, we should not ban breeds, we should ban owners!


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

BSL, banning certain breeds from counties/cities/neighborhood based on looks and reputation alone. Breeds people fear, like GSDs, Rotties, Pit Bulls, Dobe's, American Bulldogs ect. are affected by BSL, and any dog deemed to be a breed that is banned. 

And polls like that are brought up a lot when a city meets to discuss BSL.

The reasons? Ignorance and fear.. They go hand in hand.


----------



## DangerousBeauty (Jul 8, 2010)

Got it. No, no breeds should be banned. I have owned three of the breeds you listed and they were all wonderful pets.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

My pit was a rescue and one of the best dogs I'd ever had though they are banned in the US in many cities because of irresponsible owners. I also grew up with dobes my whole life another amazing breed IMO so no I don't think breeds should be banned at all- but yes irresponsible owners should. I think anyone ever found guilty of fighting, beating, or other animal abuse should never be able to own another dog again- EVER. A lot of issues would be resolved with these highly feared breeds


----------



## cagirl (Apr 17, 2010)

APBTLove said:


> BSL, banning certain breeds from counties/cities/neighborhood based on looks and reputation alone. Breeds people fear, like GSDs, Rotties, Pit Bulls, Dobe's, American Bulldogs ect. are affected by BSL, and any dog deemed to be a breed that is banned.
> 
> And polls like that are brought up a lot when a city meets to discuss BSL.
> 
> The reasons? Ignorance and fear.. They go hand in hand.


No the reason is irresponsible pet owners and breeders trying to make certain breeds what they will never be. I think that there should be some very tough repercussion for dogs who bite more than once and for pit bulls one bite and done the owner should be held responsible in many ways, hospital bills, jail time etc. Unless someone is on your property or comes within a leash length of the dog.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I do feel ignorance and fear play a huge role in why people push to have certain breeds banned. In the media we never see service dogs or other working dog's contributions- we see CHILD MAULED BY PIT BULL all over the front page. Whether or not the readers have ever had a bad experience with the breed these countless headlines become ingrained opinions of the breed taught through repetitive headlines. 

Why also would you give other breeds two chances to bite and not pits? Poodles can be aggressive along with any other breed whats the difference? I agree people should have to pay any bills associated with an attack from their pup unless it occurs in their fenced yard or is in response to an attack from another, but seriously pits are no more aggressive than any other dog and should be treated the same


----------



## cagirl (Apr 17, 2010)

Zoeys mom said:


> I do feel ignorance and fear play a huge role in why people push to have certain breeds banned. In the media we never see service dogs or other working dog's contributions- we see CHILD MAULED BY PIT BULL all over the front page. Whether or not the readers have ever had a bad experience with the breed these countless headlines become ingrained opinions of the breed taught through repetitive headlines.
> 
> Why also would you give other breeds two chances to bite and not pits? Poodles can be aggressive along with any other breed whats the difference? I agree people should have to pay any bills associated with an attack from their pup unless it occurs in their fenced yard or is in response to an attack from another, but seriously pits are no more aggressive than any other dog and should be treated the same


because pits should not be biting and if the owners wont do the right thing the government will eventually.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

no dog should be biting. I don't see any reason that some breeds should have more chances than another.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Yeah that was my point,lol A bite is a bite no matter the breed


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

No...Banning ones leads to a very slippery slope...


----------



## Dawn (Jun 23, 2010)

This debate has been going on for awhile in jersey...
it angers me mainly it is pits right now..but if they can ban one breed it can keep going.
And personally it angers me pits are wonderful dogs...half of our shelter is pits. The pits that are a problem is the owners fault...The owners of these dogs want mean fighting dogs. 
Probably 98% of the pits I see at our shelter that I work at are goof balls!! I see more aggressive shepherds (sorry..lol), Rotti's and just mutts.
**** I had my arm broke from a bite wound from a Rotti a few years ago medicating it. Never had a pit go after me.
Any breed can be aggressive. And if they start banning breeds that can become dangerous to all breeds. Which one would be next after pits.
Get stricker judges that actually prosecute these people that fight these dogs and train them to be aggressive instead of a slap of the wrist and just a fine instead of punishing the entire breed.


----------



## Jax's Mom (Apr 2, 2010)

I would love to see them try to ban a "breed" of person (not that I'd agree with that either) and see how that goes over. 
Perhaps that would illustrate the point. 
I'm fine with fining/jailing irresponsible owners but don't punish innocent dogs and their owners for what the dog "might" do, or is "capable" of doing. 
Statistic show that 99.99999% of rapes are committed by men. Do we ban men? Nevermind that 99.999% of men don't commit rape but if we just eliminate men, we'd eliminate that first 99.99999% that did take place.
See how nuts that sounds?


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

W.Oliver said:


> No, we should not ban breeds, we should ban owners!


 2nd this!!


----------



## Dawn (Jun 23, 2010)

I agree!


----------



## Hunther's Dad (Mar 13, 2010)

With apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller...


"THEY CAME FIRST for the pit bulls,
and I didn't speak up because I didn't own a pit bull.

THEN THEY CAME for the Rottweilers,
and I didn't speak up because I didn't own a Rottweiler.

THEN THEY CAME for the Dobermans,
and I didn't speak up because I didn't own a Doberman.

THEN THEY CAME for my German Shepherd,
and by that time no one was left to speak up."


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

Dawn said:


> And if they start banning breeds that can become dangerous to all breeds. Which one would be next after pits.
> Get stricker judges that actually prosecute these people that fight these dogs and train them to be aggressive instead of a slap of the wrist and just a fine instead of punishing the entire breed.


Just a tidbit on this here... People who fight dogs to prove them true to their breed (What they call 'game', it means they will not quite fighting regardless of what their body says) do not make them aggressive, in fact, dogs used in fighting are the reason the pit bull breed is so human friendly. Because the two handlers and referee have to be right in there making sure they dont' need to separate the dogs, literally faces inches from the dogs... I've seen one handler in a video from Japan, I think - the man looked American though, lean in an kiss the nose of his dog while it was pinning the other as encouragement. The dogs are to show no aggression to people, especially those involved in fighting, if they did the humans could get hurt... They cull dogs who bite.

And most who fight dogs get worse punishment than child molesters... I actually know one guy who really messed up a 12yo girl that got nearly a year in jail, and a dog fighter from VA was sentenced to a decade.

And most who DO fight dogs, for whatever reason they do, contain them WELL, to keep them from getting loose or being stolen because the dogs are prized. It is not a dog fighter's dogs who end up on the news for mauling people or pets, most of the time it's a just normal pet owners, or those who got a bully breed thinking it would guard and treated it badly/did not socialize or even encouraged meanness to people. 

I have yet to meet an actual pit bull, abused or not, who was human aggressive for no reason. Actually, I met one at my shelter, she was cage aggressive and was PTS. 


And when a ban on 'pit bulls' goes into effect, it will normally come with a list of breeds like amstaff, APBT, SBT, and any dog who LOOKS like a pit bull type. 


But bans include all kinds of dogs.


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending those lawbreakers who do it in America, I'm just saying it would be a very rare thing for a fighting dog to hurt a human or to get loose and cause trouble, because they are very well-contained and are some of the least human-aggressive dogs you'll find... Logic just says no, it's not fighting dogs who cause the trouble. 


Forgive me for going on and on, this is not just about bully breeds. BSL is harming many, many dogs and owners.. 
Here is a list of dog breeds who currently have bans/BSL in the US.
http://rdows.wordpress.com/rdows-updated-compilation-of-bannedrestricted-dog-breeds/ 



> List of 75 Banned or Restricted Dogs
> 
> 1. AIREDALE TERRIER
> 2. AKBASH
> ...


----------



## Sathington Willoughby (Jul 25, 2010)

I don't think any breeds should be banned, but why are pugs on that list?
What could a pug possibly do to get banned in a town?


----------



## Jax's Mom (Apr 2, 2010)

Boston Terrier? Labrador & Golden Retriever? Wow.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

I think it would be interesting to see the sourcing of that information as well as the communities in which these breeds are banned. 

Pugs breathe awfully loud - I could see a ban for that.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

cagirl said:


> because pits should not be biting and if the owners wont do the right thing the government will eventually.


Is it ok for another breed to bite? I think that a GSD or Rottie bite, for example, can be just as bad if not worse than a pit bull bite.

I once took a Rottie bite on a sleeve - WOW! I would hate to have one mad at me!


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> I think it would be interesting to see the sourcing of that information as well as the communities in which these breeds are banned.
> 
> Pugs breathe awfully loud - I could see a ban for that.


I'm trying to find out... But I'm about as good with computers as Jaeger is.. lol


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

codmaster said:


> Is it ok for another breed to bite? I think that a GSD or Rottie bite, for example, can be just as bad if not worse than a pit bull bite.
> 
> I once took a Rottie bite on a sleeve - WOW! I would hate to have one mad at me!


I think she might, might have meant pits shouldn't be biting, because they're bred with a lot of aim at them NOT being human-aggressive. Most bulldog owners kill their pit for unwarranted aggression to people... Whereas GSD/rotties are guardians, meant to dissuade people and animals to protect.


----------



## cagirl (Apr 17, 2010)

codmaster said:


> Is it ok for another breed to bite? I think that a GSD or Rottie bite, for example, can be just as bad if not worse than a pit bull bite.
> 
> I once took a Rottie bite on a sleeve - WOW! I would hate to have one mad at me!


The way I see it is this. GSD/rottie are gaurdian breeds. The pit bull are not, and if they bite a human there is something wrong mentally and they shoudl be destroyed but maybe thats just me.


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

cagirl said:


> The way I see it is this. GSD/rottie are gaurdian breeds. The pit bull are not, and if they bite a human there is something wrong mentally and they shoudl be destroyed but maybe thats just me.


No, that is the thinking of a LOT of responsible bulldog owners. It is not true to the breed to be human aggressive in any way... Thus those dogs are culled because for an APBT to be human-aggressive mean there is generally something wrong mentally with the dog.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

No breeds should be banned. The ones who should be banned are the idiots who abuse and neglect them.


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

Jessiewessie99 said:


> No breeds should be banned. The ones who should be banned are the idiots who abuse and neglect them.


Bingo... There should be stricter leash laws, and fines for allowing a dog to be loose or not properly contained and tried one dog at a time, how is it effective to kill or restrict dogs who've never hurt a soul and probably never will? 

ANY time I've had a problem with a loose dog, it's an easily fixable problem at home... A loose screw in the gate, fence is too short, dogs dig under, dogs bolt out the door, weak tie out - you name it! All easy fixes.


----------



## cagirl (Apr 17, 2010)

APBTLove said:


> Bingo... There should be stricter leash laws, and fines for allowing a dog to be loose or not properly contained and tried one dog at a time, how is it effective to kill or restrict dogs who've never hurt a soul and probably never will?
> 
> ANY time I've had a problem with a loose dog, it's an easily fixable problem at home... A loose screw in the gate, fence is too short, dogs dig under, dogs bolt out the door, weak tie out - you name it! All easy fixes.


Yup and I think that there needs to be tougher laws, I mean I remember everyone going off about some legislation in Ca where they would spay and neuter your dog the 2nd time loose, is that really a bad thing? People need to be held responsible not the poor animals and the responsible owners should not be punished.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

APBTLove said:


> No, that is the thinking of a LOT of responsible bulldog owners. It is not true to the breed to be human aggressive in any way... Thus those dogs are culled because for an APBT to be human-aggressive mean there is generally something wrong mentally with the dog.


Can't they be TRAINED to be human aggressive - that would not be anything wrong with them mentally.


----------



## aubie (Dec 22, 2008)

What I hate are most of the dogs that are labeled "Pits" and involved in some sort of attack are either:

1. Abused and neglected like mad
2. Not true pits, they have been bred with all sorts of things to make them bigger, meaner and nastier thus messing up all kinds of genetics.

I can't believe cocker spaniels aren't on that list...due to horrible breeding there is actually a thing called cocker rage. My parents cocker (baaaadly bred dog, had all kinds of issues) actually bit my dad's nose which required an ER trip and stitches. 

I am intriuged that pugs and frenchies are on that list...although I do have to say the gas they pass alone may be enough to put them on there!


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

aubie said:


> What I hate are most of the dogs that are labeled "Pits" and involved in some sort of attack are either:
> 
> 1. Abused and neglected like mad
> 2. Not true pits, they have been bred with all sorts of things to make them bigger, meaner and nastier thus messing up all kinds of genetics.
> ...


 
My Aunt adopted a Cocker Spaniel and out of nowhere it jumped up and mauled my cousins face. Completely unprovoked 

I hate that they are trying to ban any breed. Any dog can be vicious. Any dog can bite wether they are big or small, purebred or mixed, black or white. Little dogs bite more than big dogs, but their bites are less severe and they are almost never reported. It's crap. I got bit by a Springer Spaniel, it was unprovoked, did we report it, no, I did not want that dog put down. Does that mean that Springer Spaniels should be on BSL lists? No.

If this crap continues we will only be allowed piece of  yappy, annoying little dogs that are useless.

I thought this was a free country? Why cant I have whatever dog I want?

Not only that but another thing that really upsets me is Home Owners Insurance not covering you if you have a dog that they do not permit. I have American Family Insurance and I cannot own a Pitbull, Rottweiler, Akita, Chow, Presa Canerio or a Wolf Hybrid or anything mixed with them. Ridiculous :angryfire:


----------



## Stogey (Jun 29, 2010)

No ... but some pet owners should be banned from ever owning another !


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

codmaster said:


> Can't they be TRAINED to be human aggressive - that would not be anything wrong with them mentally.


I can't tell you how many times I've heard people who are disappointed in their 'pit bull' because they can't make it mean to people no matter how they 'train' it to be. I have seen some excel in SchH, or PP (rarely), but it's not the norm and those sports don't equal HA... Human aggression is the unprovoked bite/attack on a person, or a bad reaction to strangers, a reaction of aggression that is.

A well-bred APBT would be extremely hard to make HA... I mean, you'd have to make sure every experience it had with a stranger was bad pretty much, and bring it to the point of fight or flight every time a person comes near. And even then, if you make it fear people enough to react in a bad way, it would likely choose flight before a bite. 

I have seen people do the cruelest things to these dogs, and the dogs don't even fight back. everything from burning them to hanging and beating with golf clubs and the dogs just take it.

I rescued an American Staff boy who spent ten years on a chain, and was beaten by his owner when he got drunk or mad, and was constantly teased by neighborhood kids who thought he was mean, so they'd sneak up to his chainspot and when he came toward them they'd run screaming, or they'd hit him with things, throw rocks at him.. Yet nearing a decade of abuse and torment didn't ruin him, he didn't show any aggression to humans ever. He flinched like crazy when you went to pet him, even peed on himself if you raised your voice, but he was always friendly. He lived his last two years with a family and never showed a hint of instability.. These dogs are hard to really mess up.


I suppose you could compare a HA pit bull dog to a German Shepherd with weak nerves to the point of extreme fear when anything new comes in the picture. It is just something very off with the dog, you can't train a GSD to have weak nerves, it's something wrong with some dogs... You can't train an APBT to be truly HA.


----------



## kiya (May 3, 2010)

No, its the people not the dog. 
BSL is dangerous, and it will spread from town to town. They just tried to do a Pitbull ban in a town in Nassau county, I think it was Rocville Center, NY, fortunately it was turned down. 
I firmly believe people should be held 100% responsible for thier dogs. And breeders should be held responsible for selling puppies to people who should not have dogs. My friends son, at age 14 came home with a pitbull puppy from a byb about 3 or 4 years ago. I kept telling her to make him take it back, I got a phone call from her last week. He can't keep the dog anymore and she can't find a home for him, of course there was no training and the dog is hard to handle. Terrible situation.


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

LaRen616 said:


> My Aunt adopted a Cocker Spaniel and out of nowhere it jumped up and mauled my cousins face. Completely unprovoked
> 
> I hate that they are trying to ban any breed. Any dog can be vicious. Any dog can bite wether they are big or small, purebred or mixed, black or white. Little dogs bite more than big dogs, but their bites are less severe and they are almost never reported. It's crap. I got bit by a Springer Spaniel, it was unprovoked, did we report it, no, I did not want that dog put down. Does that mean that Springer Spaniels should be on BSL lists? No.
> 
> ...


It is ridiculous and it makes no logical sense to ban one breed... Do you really think the bad owners of the breed, the ones who don't care if their dog bites a person or gets loose, will care if their dog is eventually confiscated and killed? No, they'll move on to another dog. Cane Corso's are going up in popularity, I have seen four in recent months in my neighborhood alone. What happens when CCs start popping up more and more? They will be next... 

Come now, small dogs are not useless, their owners who treat them like babies and make them nervous wrecks are. My tiny girl is just great, she was raised like the GSDs and trained the same, and treated like a dog... Best little ratter I've had


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

kiya said:


> No, its the people not the dog.
> BSL is dangerous, and it will spread from town to town. They just tried to do a Pitbull ban in a town in Nassau county, I think it was Rocville Center, NY, fortunately it was turned down.
> I firmly believe people should be held 100% responsible for thier dogs. And breeders should be held responsible for selling puppies to people who should not have dogs. My friends son, at age 14 came home with a pitbull puppy from a byb about 3 or 4 years ago. I kept telling her to make him take it back, I got a phone call from her last week. He can't keep the dog anymore and she can't find a home for him, of course there was no training and the dog is hard to handle. Terrible situation.


Exactly.

I'm thankful that, at the moment, Virginia has laws prohibiting BSL. They do it dog by dog, not breed by breed.

That's really sad... If you she has him, tell her to get in touch with PBRC. They helped me place an elderly, animal-reactive, non-trained bulldog into a great home.


----------



## Hunther's Dad (Mar 13, 2010)

I have an idea...let's ban busybodies who do nothing more than figure out what they're going to try to get banned today.

In the 1970's I rode dirt bikes in the desert. Banned - too destructive to the fragile ecosystem, don't you know.

In the 1980's and 1990's I got interested in competition shooting.  AAAAHHH! MY G-d he's got GUNS! No further explanation needed.

And now, in the new millennium, "they" want to ban my bleepin' DOG.

Somebody needs to tell these people that the world doesn't want to be saved...the world wants to be left alone. Now.


----------



## cagirl (Apr 17, 2010)

Hunther's Dad said:


> I have an idea...let's ban busybodies who do nothing more than figure out what they're going to try to get banned today.
> 
> In the 1970's I rode dirt bikes in the desert. Banned - too destructive to the fragile ecosystem, don't you know.
> 
> ...


You are so right, the problem I have is we are suppose to be the land of the free yet we have rules and laws even down to what we can eat and drink lol


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

LaRen616 said:


> ......................
> Not only that but another thing that really upsets me is Home Owners Insurance not covering you if you have a dog that they do not permit. I have American Family Insurance and I cannot own a Pitbull, Rottweiler, Akita, Chow, Presa Canerio or a Wolf Hybrid or anything mixed with them. Ridiculous :angryfire:


Actually, most of the time insurance company decisions like this are based on statistical facts derived from loss history data in the industry - i.e. the breeds that some companies won't insure are the ones causing the industry payoffs.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

codmaster said:


> Actually, most of the time insurance company decisions like this are based on statistical facts derived from loss history data in the industry - i.e. the breeds that some companies won't insure are the ones causing the industry payoffs.


My insurance won't let us own Dobermans, Rottweilers, and Pitbulls. WHy because they think they are "Dangerous breeds". My family and I were thinking of getting a Doberman before getting a GSD, and found that out about our insurance. Funny thing is I have been around all 3 of those breeds and none are dangerous.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I will play devil's advocate:

I own GSDs, but it can be a dangerous breed. I bought my house for 29k. I bought my care for 11k. I owe 60k on my house, and 3+ years on my car which already has over 160k miles on it. My homeowner's insurance has my house insured for approximately 80k. So, so long as my dogs do not maul someone badly enough that they will require surgery, my homeowner's insurance will probably be able to manage a dog bite before they drop me. 

The fact is that German Shepherds for the most part take a bite or two, it may need to be seen by a physician. Usually it does not require surgery. 

No way on earth should I own a pit bull. Sorry, but pit bulls, yes or many of the dogs that make up the family of bully breeds, have the capability of doing serious damage to people. You can say that they are not people aggressive and are bred to not be people aggressive, but the fact of the matter is, there are many incidents of _maulings_, people mauled by pit bulls, sorry bully breeds. And the serious nature of the injuries sustained and reported often have a hefty price tag. 

It may not be the breeds. It may be the owners. But maybe, just maybe there should be breed specific legislation that requires an insurance policy and a clean criminal record to be eligible to own these dogs. Maybe it should be required that you are a home owner.

Now the screams of "racist" and "classist" will pour out. 

Maybe we are not doing anyone any favors by allowing dog ownership to everyone. But the fact of the matter is that while your cocker spaniel or scottie may be more likely to bite than a GSD or a pitt, they are not likely to cause serious injuries. 

Somehow you have to find a way to keep your beloved bullies out of the hands of those people who have nothing to lose. Until then you will be fighting BSL forever. 

I do not think that every dog owner should foot the bill for these dogs' damages whether inflicted on dogs or humans. I do not think that people who own retrievers and hounds and toy dogs should have have to buy $100,000 insurance policies for each dog. That would be completely unfair. But it is too late to require it after a dog bites. Sorry, but waiting for dogs to maul people means that people do not have to even bother being careful until they have a dog that seriously injures or kills someone. Not good. If requiring people to pay extra to own these dogs or to have them covered by a home owners insurance policy or by a bond on the house itself, well, then people will care more about not letting that first incident ever happen.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

selzer said:


> I will play devil's advocate:
> 
> I own GSDs, but it can be a dangerous breed. I bought my house for 29k. I bought my care for 11k. I owe 60k on my house, and 3+ years on my car which already has over 160k miles on it. My homeowner's insurance has my house insured for approximately 80k. So, so long as my dogs do not maul someone badly enough that they will require surgery, my homeowner's insurance will probably be able to manage a dog bite before they drop me.
> 
> ...


Mostly the dog is either abused, neglected, poorly socialized, or not even a pitbull or all of those.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

so? 

To the its-not-a-pitbull-people: The legislation usually is written up that lists the different breeds that they lump in with pitties, and mixes thereof. Some of them say that if it resembles a pitbull, then it is not allowed or whatever. We can say there is no pit bull breed until the cows come home but it does not change the fact that bully breeds have an inordinate amount of serious injuries to their credit. And fighting over terminology isn't getting anyone anywhere. 

Bully breed people have to come up with a solution to the problem. Right now their very popular dogs are in some very irresponsible hands and have caused very serious injuries to too many people. 

I do not know what the answer is, but I would definitely restrict ownership so that only people who are likely to be responsible owners can own them. To all others, mandatory spay/neuter of existing dogs of these breeds, and then not allowing these dogs' ownership to be transferred to people without certain credentials. 

Maybe people should have to purchase a dangerous dog license. People who want to own certain breeds would have to meet certain criteria, ie background check, insurance, home ownership, etc. The purchase the license before they purchase a puppy, and the breeders of such dogs will have to mark down the license numbers of the persons buying their dogs. When they receive their license they will receive a list of requirments to owning such dogs with respect to containment, and what they need to do if the dog does attack a person or a dog, and what they need to do to rehome a dog, ie require a license. 

Just saying BSL is unfair is not good enough. There has to be an alternative, some way to get these dogs away from the people likely to abuse, neglect, not train/socialize, or train them to be aggressive.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

selzer said:


> so?
> 
> To the its-not-a-pitbull-people: The legislation usually is written up that lists the different breeds that they lump in with pitties, and mixes thereof. Some of them say that if it resembles a pitbull, then it is not allowed or whatever. We can say there is no pit bull breed until the cows come home but it does not change the fact that bully breeds have an inordinate amount of serious injuries to their credit. And fighting over terminology isn't getting anyone anywhere.
> 
> ...


You said "You can say that they are not people aggressive and are bred to not be people aggressive, but the fact of the matter is, there are many incidents of maulings, people mauled by pit bulls, sorry bully breeds. And the serious nature of the injuries sustained and reported often have a hefty price tag."

When pitbulls are not people aggressive, nor are they bred to be people aggressive. It is due to poor socialization, poor training, abuse and neglect. And also the reports are somtimes exaggerated. Also most are not pitbulls, people automatically assume it is a pitbull because its a dog attack. when people think dog attack they think pitbull.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Jessie - sounds like you are FOR breed specific legislation? Is that true?

"Pit bulls" today "enjoy" the same noteriety that Dobes, GSD's, and Rotties have enjoyed in various periods in the past. Great popularity from the news media whenever the breed does anything bad.

BTW, Jessie do you really think that a pit bull is any worse than a Rottie. Which would you rather get bitten by? NIETHER! Of course.

Insurance companies look at statistics to determine which dogs are not worth insuring based on frequency and amounts paid out. They do not discriminate blindly - based on numbers! Some companies can interpret the hard data differently which is why some will insure GSD's and some will not. Their choice - they all look at the same empirical data.


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

You raise valid point, Selz, but using BSL on certain breeds does not help. The only ones who will follow the law are the ones who care enough about their dogs to do so. The others will just move on to another breed, I've seen it with my own eyes. A neighbor had American Bullies, they were unsocialized, nervy dogs. And they kept biting people, eventually AC took the dogs and they immediately got a Presa Canario, and are breeding it, along with their husky/shepherd. 

The people who want their dogs to be mean, who allow them to get out and cause problems or to hurt people or other animals won't care for BSL, they'll keep their dogs until AC comes knocking, or they'll just get rid of them and move to another dog.

Which is why I say instead of attacking one breed at a time, have much harsher penalties for dog attacks.

When a bully breed truly attacks someone it's rough. Simply because they are powerful and tend to hold and shake like terriers instead of say, a GSD, who will generally bite several times. Most Bully breeds are powerful and agile, but so are many, many breeds... It just so happens that pit bull dogs outnumber most other dogs. When I go through petfinder to look up dogs in need of placing I sometimes have to pass entire pages of bully breeds.


There is a such a thing as a 'pit bull', it's the American PIT BULL Terrier, that's the only pit bull. The rest (American Bullies, American Staffordshire, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bulldogs, mixes ect.) are labeled 'pit bull' but are not. That's why in BSL it usually has a short list of what other breeds might be called a pit bull in the ban.


But it is not just bully breeds affected, and the fact is if you let BSL pass for bully breeds in one area, how long until it's your German Shepherds people get scared of and propose they add them to the ban list? Even if your dog gets grandfathered in, you will have to muzzle your dog in public, and many places make your dog wear a "Warning - vicious dog" collar in bright colors just because it's breed was affected by BSL.

I stick by saying there will be no helping the current dog problems with breed-specific targeting. Education, harsher fines and punishment for owners, laws for BYBs (for it's BYBs pumping out the unstable garbage dogs most people own that bite) and less chances given to a dog (You know, three reported bites and you're out).


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

codmaster said:


> Jessie - sounds like you are FOR breed specific legislation? Is that true?
> 
> "Pit bulls" today "enjoy" the same noteriety that Dobes, GSD's, and Rotties have enjoyed in various periods in the past. Great popularity from the news media whenever the breed does anything bad.
> 
> ...


I am pretty sure Jess is against BSL...

I think we can thank the media for CREATING the breed's reputation. If a pit bull sneezes on an old lady, it's a story.. 

Just me, but I'd rather get bitten by a pit bull type lol Rotties bite pressure is usually more, and whereas I could play tug with and throw my 55 pound bulldog around, spin her in circles while she held on, playing tug with the rottie was ridiculous, she was stronger than me..


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Jessiewessie99 said:


> when people think dog attack they think pitbull.


I wonder why???

It does not matter what the reason is the dog bit the person or killed their dog. It really does not matter, not to the victim, not to the community that has a family burying their two year old or their grandmother because of these dogs. 

It is RARE to hear about GSDs, Dobermans, or even Rottys KILLING someone. Much more frequently it is dogs from the bully breeds and their mixes. 

To claim that it is not a problem and it is not the fault of these breeds is not going to stop BSL. I do not think you CAN stop BSL. I think you could introduce BSL that works, that makes sense, that will require some amount of responsibility that owners of these dogs must show. By introducing BSL that makes sense, you can maybe limit the rediculous and and unfeeling BSL that is currently being proposed in so many places.

By introducing a method to reduce the number of these dogs being sold to irresponsible people, you can maybe save current dogs. Right now, they do not have to grandfather in current dogs. If your town bans anything that looks like a pitt, then they can give you three months to move or rehome it and otherwise confiscate and euthanize the animal -- that is the crap you are up against. 

By proposing BSL that makes sense, maybe you can save dogs that exist and reduce the incidents of serious injuries across the board.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I know that people not registering their dog, not registering the breed, etc, is a problem. If you make the penalties for having a non-registered dog severe, maybe people would take it more seriously. If you make the penalty for owning an unregistered dog that had an incident that much more severe than maybe it would make a difference. 

For example, your dog seriously bites someone or kills their dog. Your paperwork is in order, rabies shots are up to date, license and registration is there, then you are charged with the dog biting the person pay a fine and damages. If your paperwork is not in order, the dog is not registered or up to date on rabies vaccination, then you are criminally negligent and can be held for a greater fine and court sanctions like not being permitted to own a dog for a number of years.


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

Now, I know nobody wants to hear it, but the fact is the reason so many things are reporting as 'pit bulls' is because it's a rare person who knows what a 'pit bull' is.
THIS is a PIT BULL:

















That is a normal size for an American PIT BULL Terrier, and normal looks too. That is the only breed that can be called a 'pit bull'. Ignorance labels many, many breeds and mutts as 'pit bulls' though because the general public thinks of an American Bully, or a huge dog with a huge head, a big stocky, low dog, anything that is muscular with short hair, when they hear pit bull. And the truth is the only real pit bull is a small/medium dog with no extraordinary strength or power.



As for why people think 'pit bull' when they hear 'dog attack' - easy, the media that hypes every single bully breed(or not) bite up to something crazy. A single attack from one of these dogs, especially one ending in a mauling or death, is spread over the US. If every dog attack like that were, everyone would probably be scared of dogs in general. 

Odd, when the Northern Inuit dog hurt that baby so bad not too long ago, the dogs were rescued, had it been a pit dog it would have likely been killed and the story spread nationwide as "Pit Bull Takes Baby From Crib and Mauls."


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

APBTLove said:


> ......................
> When a bully breed truly attacks someone it's rough. Simply because they are powerful and tend to hold and shake like terriers instead of say, a GSD, who will generally bite several times....... It just so happens that pit bull dogs outnumber most other dogs. *How do they outnumber them?.......*
> 
> There is a such a thing as a 'pit bull', it's the American PIT BULL Terrier, that's the only pit bull. The rest (American Bullies, American Staffordshire, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bulldogs, mixes ect.) are labeled 'pit bull' but are not. ........... *There does seem to be a lot of confusion in defining a 'Pit Bull'. *
> ...


*First, you would also have to define a BYB! Very difficult to do this - I.E. would you distinguish between a "BYB" and a serious "Hobby breeder" and would you lump a "Show" breeder who has won the National Speciality show with these two?*


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

selzer said:


> I know that people not registering their dog, not registering the breed, etc, is a problem. If you make the penalties for having a non-registered dog severe, maybe people would take it more seriously. If you make the penalty for owning an unregistered dog that had an incident that much more severe than maybe it would make a difference.
> 
> For example, your dog seriously bites someone or kills their dog. Your paperwork is in order, rabies shots are up to date, license and registration is there, then you are charged with the dog biting the person pay a fine and damages. If your paperwork is not in order, the dog is not registered or up to date on rabies vaccination, then you are criminally negligent and can be held for a greater fine and court sanctions like not being permitted to own a dog for a number of years.


That sounds good, and I know it's in effect in some places. But I think it needs to be for every breed, not just German Shepherds, or 'Bully', or Malamutes, for _every_ dog and bite incident.


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

codmaster said:


> *First, you would also have to define a BYB! Very difficult to do this - I.E. would you distinguish between a "BYB" and a serious "Hobby breeder" and would you lump a "Show" breeder who has won the National Speciality show with these two?*


I think that breeders should be required to have their dogs pass health and temperament tests in the very least. I've yet to meet a BYB who health/TT tests. 


*How do they outnumber them?....... *
Ever take a walk through most city shelters? In the unsavory neighborhoods? They're all you see. The only other breeds/mixes I think rival or outnumber bully breeds would be lab mixes and hound mixes.

*There does seem to be a lot of confusion in defining a 'Pit Bull'. *
I know there is, the video in my signature explains it a bit, but the only true 'pit bull' is the american *Pit Bull* Terrier. Breeds like Amstaff and American Bully came off of them, and people started to call them pit bulls too, but they are not.
It's kind of like people calling King Shepherd's German Shepherds, they are not the same dog though.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

There is a study going around for a 20 year period, I think 1980 - 2000, where they listed deaths by breed.

GSDs and their mixes = 17
Rottweilers = 33
Pit Bulls = 66

Now in that time frame, I do not think that pitties were that much more popular than GSDs. But that is less than one death per year for GSDs. It is more than 3 deaths per year for pitts. 

I am sorry, but every time I hear about someone dying because of a dog it is almost always a pit bull. 

They do call everything in the family a pit bull, so just sub in bully breed. Cane Corso, presa Canario etc., these dogs require owners who are responsible. 

Breeders really cannot do it on their own. I cannot order a background check on everyone who wants to buy a puppy. I can ask if they own their home, but I have no way of checking that info out. 

Now if they made the licensing procedure a little more extensive for some breeds, and the license had to be purchased prior to the dog, the breeder would then only have to tell the person over the phone that they need a powerful dog license prior to taking the puppy home. The buyer would have to jump the hoops or not own the dog. People will always disobey laws, and when they are caught the penalty needs to make not doing it in the first place pretty stupid.


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

Not really on topic, but to show further what I mean of "They outnumber other breeds".

Within a five block radius of my home there are.
3 German Shepherds - including mine.
5-6 labs who appear pure (one may or may not still be living. 
Over *20* dogs who's owners claim they are pit bulls. Though I admit, a few look like American Bulldogs... 

Yet the only things that have gotten me here are minpins and a crazy cocker... Though I have found many, many bully breeds running loose.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

APBTLove said:


> That sounds good, and I know it's in effect in some places. But I think it needs to be for every breed, not just German Shepherds, or 'Bully', or Malamutes, for _every_ dog and bite incident.



I disagree. a bite does not always equal a bite. 

Getting bit by a scotty and getting mauled by a bully breed are two different things altogether. 

People should know up front that they have a powerful dog and need to license it differently, contain it differently, manage it differently. The thing is that the people do know, they just do not bother to do so, those people that are irresponsible. 

Having a cairn terrier in the hands of a novice dog owner is no big deal. Having a breed that can do damage is. 

I personally think that people should have to prove some sort of financial responsibility and not be a social degenerate (criminal) if they want to own a dog that can be used as a weapon. GSDs, Dobermans, Rottys, Chows would be included in this. If you want to go with dogs likely to bite dogs too, than Akitas and some others. 

If GSDs were facing the same type of breed bias that pitties are, then I would welcome breed specific requirements to ownership, just so that we could reduce the number of idiots owning and screwing up with our dogs.


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

selzer said:


> There is a study going around for a 20 year period, I think 1980 - 2000, where they listed deaths by breed.
> 
> GSDs and their mixes = 17
> Rottweilers = 33
> ...


If I thought it would help, I'd propose a type of BSL for bully breeds... But what will happen to the dogs who's owner said "I'll do what I want" and got a bully breed without proper licensing? And then was fined, but the dog will die. They wouldn't be enough rescues to help them.

Or, what about the owners who are responsible, but not 'good enough' to own a bully breed, but had one before the BSL was passed?

I'm genuinely curious, what would you propose a bully owner be required to have/do to continue owning their dog or to get a bully breed?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Many, many bully breeds running loose -- that is NOT a problem???

Yes cockers and min pins might bite you, but few people are worried about losing their lives to these dogs.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

APBTLove said:


> Or, what about the owners who are responsible, but not 'good enough' to own a bully breed, but had one before the BSL was passed?
> 
> I'm genuinely curious, what would you propose a bully owner be required to have/do to continue owning their dog or to get a bully breed?


Very good question! 

Maybe one must be "rich" and own a home and have a fenced yard to own any bully breed and even more so to own a real pit bull?

Maybe we ought to insist on the same thing for car ownership - anyone with a car with more than 200 hp should have to do more and pay more and have more insurance and pass a special license exam and .........


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

selzer said:


> I disagree. a bite does not always equal a bite.
> 
> Getting bit by a scotty and getting mauled by a bully breed are two different things altogether.
> 
> ...


But I would want a small dog to be dealt with for a bite the same as a large dog... People come in smaller sizes too. A Cairn attacking a small child could be fatal. Just me, but I'd want to see dogs proven aggressive all be handled the same.

I understand what you are saying, I'd rather be attacked by a pom than a great dane. But I always think of little ones when it comes to dogs... My niece was riding her bike not ten feet in front of me on a walk with my old male shepherd once. A dog that I swear looked like Benji ( you know, all the benji movies), maybe 20 pounds, came hurtling out of a yard and flew at her, jumped and tore her off her bike, grabbing ahold of her arm and shaking her, not to mention the fall had torn her up. I immediately let my old boy off his leash and he ripped that dog off of her within half a second... to an adult like me that do would have been little threat, but to her it left numerous good-sized punctures, scrapes and damage. It did the same to me a couple of weeks later, I got a few bloody welts.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

selzer said:


> Many, many bully breeds running loose -- that is NOT a problem???
> 
> Yes cockers and min pins might bite you, but few people are worried about losing their lives to these dogs.


Certainly a cocker could easily kill a small child though. How about a Golden? Potential killer?

How about a Rottie - killer? There are a LOT of dogs that can easily kill some people if they really tried to. Should all of these potential killers be treated like you would treat the bullies? Akitas?

BSL is a VERY slippery slope!


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

selzer said:


> Many, many bully breeds running loose -- that is NOT a problem???
> 
> Yes cockers and min pins might bite you, but few people are worried about losing their lives to these dogs.


Oh it is... Thankfully I've yet to run into one who acted aggressively to me, but I always grab them and take them home, let AC pick them up. Many I've found are in disgusting condition, and every female I've found showed signs of being bred.


However, it's the owners who shoud dbe punished more severely, not just told to go pick their dog up at the SPCA with a $15 holding fee.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

In one of my many posts on this thread, I did mention a grandfather clause for existing dogs with the requirement that they be altered. 

I think it is inhumane to legislate existing dogs out of existance.

Within ten years or so, only people who can prove some type of responsibility would be legally owning the dogs. If they did this ten years ago, that would be the case now, but that this will take 5-10 years to make a significant difference, is not a reason NOT to do it.

This will not end the breed you love, but would limit the ownership to people who are likely to be responsible with the dogs. 

If someone says, I'll do what I want after the legislation goes into effect and gets the dog illegally, oh well. Yes, their dog will be confiscated. And if no one that can procure a license for the dog shows up, then yes it will be euthanized. I think that is much better than just saying no more pit bull and bully breeds.

You who own these breeds, we who do not are NOT the enemy. Those legislatures are not the enemy. The enemy are the owners of the many bully breeds in your neighborhoods letting them run loose. The enemy is the irresponsible owners. You need to declare war on them in order to be able to have the breed you love.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

APBTLove said:


> But I would want a small dog to be dealt with for a bite the same as a large dog... People come in smaller sizes too. A Cairn attacking a small child could be fatal. Just me, but I'd want to see dogs proven aggressive all be handled the same.
> 
> I understand what you are saying, I'd rather be attacked by a pom than a great dane. But I always think of little ones when it comes to dogs... My niece was riding her bike not ten feet in front of me on a walk with my old male shepherd once. A dog that I swear looked like Benji ( you know, all the benji movies), maybe 20 pounds, came hurtling out of a yard and flew at her, jumped and tore her off her bike, grabbing ahold of her arm and shaking her, not to mention the fall had torn her up. I immediately let my old boy off his leash and *he ripped that dog off of her within half a second.*.. to an adult like me that do would have been little threat, but to her it left numerous good-sized punctures, scrapes and damage. It did the same to me a couple of weeks later, I got a few bloody welts.


Pity you didn't let him finish the job!


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I think we all need to remember allowing legislation to dictate who and how dogs are owned is a slippery slope. It starts off with the breeds most noted in the media......but then it slowly but surely gets turned into each and every breed with a similar characteristic using this characteristic as the reasons for more restrictions. I am active in the reptile community and this is something we are seeing now with boa and python bans nationwide.

In my county you get a $500 fine if your dog is not registered- if your caught that is, but a registration does nothing to insure responsible ownership nor does it reduce number of bites. Most dog bites don't occur because the dog is roaming rabid down the street looking to kill someone- they occur in the owners home or yard with their victims usually being people the dog and/or owner knows. Your average dog bite is not deadly or even severe as it is. Registration and responsible ownership is important, but banning breeds with the assumption the average owner can not be responsible for the dog is ludicrous, and with this frame of mind many wonderful breeds in time will not be around. I don't support any entity making assumptions for me as to the type of owner I am, or the breed I may own


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

selzer said:


> Many, many bully breeds running loose -- that is NOT a problem???
> 
> Yes cockers and min pins might bite you, but few people are worried about losing their lives to these dogs.


How about the many other breeds other than the bully breeds? You almost seem to have some problem with these breeds - don't you think that other breeds can be just as dangerous as any of the bully breeds or are these the only dangerous breeds? Ever see a Rottie in full out attack mode? or for that matter a St. Bernard? Very scarey!

Fact is, the scariest dog I have seen personally was a HUGE male Irish Wolfhound in his own house when he thought I was an intruder. I felt like a wolf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

codmaster said:


> Certainly a cocker could easily kill a small child though. How about a Golden? Potential killer?
> 
> How about a Rottie - killer? There are a LOT of dogs that can easily kill some people if they really tried to. Should all of these potential killers be treated like you would treat the bullies? Akitas?
> 
> BSL is a VERY slippery slope!


I have heard of a pom killing an infant. I am sure the whole country heard about that incident. The days old child left on the bed with the dog by the father while he went to get a bottle, and the child was killed by the tiny dog. 

But it is not a public health threat. Poms are not likely to kill a child walking to school in the morning, or a grandmother mowing her lawn. 

I think that to own a powerful breed of dog, a dog that can kill an adult, should require more than a $10 license. After all, to drive my car I must have insurance. To drive my bicycle, I do not.


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

selzer said:


> In one of my many posts on this thread, I did mention a grandfather clause for existing dogs with the requirement that they be altered.


Would that include breedworthy dogs in show homes? Or those deemed unfit to own one of these breeds, would they be forced to make changes or give up the dogs?


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

selzer said:


> ...........But it is not a public health threat. Poms are not likely to kill a child walking to school in the morning, or a grandmother mowing her lawn.
> I think that to own a powerful breed of dog, a dog that can kill an adult, should require more than a $10 license. After all, to drive my car I must have insurance. To drive my bicycle, I do not.


Ok, here is the problem - you are in charge.

What is a "powerful" breed? GSD's included, I assume. Where do you draw the line on breeds that would fall under your new laws? What requirements would you place on these owners and breeds? Would all "powerful" breeds have the same restrictions (and of course what would they be?).

Please fill us in on what you would do since you seem to make a good case for some BSL.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

when I was growing up, the dog of the hour was the dobie. I grew up hearing that they are all man-killers, that their brains get too big for their heads and they go insane. 
When my grandmother was young, it was GSDs. Pits are just the latest in line. The move is already moving towards Canos and other similar dogs. 

The reason people think "pit" when they hear attack is because that is that they are conditioned to think. Many times, the media blares "pit attack" and the dog isn't even a pit. Some version of BSL even state "any dog that MIGHT have pit in its ancestry" How do you prove a negative on a mixed dog? Some consider a pit to be any dog with floppy ears and a short muzzle.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

codmaster said:


> How about the many other breeds other than the bully breeds? You almost seem to have some problem with these breeds - don't you think that other breeds can be just as dangerous as any of the bully breeds or are these the only dangerous breeds? Ever see a Rottie in full out attack mode? or for that matter a St. Bernard? Very scarey!
> 
> Fact is, the scariest dog I have seen personally was a HUGE male Irish Wolfhound in his own house when he thought I was an intruder. I felt like a wolf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


No, codmaster, you are reading that into it, several times I mentioned other large powerful breeds, GSDs, Dobermans, Rottys. I think people with powerful breeds need to be more responsible. If making licensing requirements more stringent for these breeds, would reduced the number of idiots owning them, then I am all for that. 

How are you not good enough? Have a criminal background? Are you unable to obtain an insurance policy for the dog? Home ownership is the biggie though. I threw it in there. Renters come and go, people who own their homes have to be a bit more responsible, more stable. I think there could be some other provisions that would make home ownership unnecessary, but I am unsure what those would be. 

What I see as a major problem is people who have no business owning a dog, owning large powerful dogs, usually happy with them if they act aggressively, because these people do not have anything to lose. 

If GSDs were getting the bad press that bully breeds are getting, I would be all for BSL that makes sense and would restrict ownership to individuals that are more likely to be responsible. 

The problem with the whole thing is that the legislature is not elected by reason of their knowledge of dog breeds, behavior, etc. They are spurred on by a population that screams for the end of the bully breeds in one breath, and many many voters who own them who do not want ANY restrictions on their breed. So they want to do what is fair, dog is dog, bite is bite, and some old grandmother with a maltese now has to have a $100K liability policy on a dog that has never had any problem with. 

Sorry, but it only makes sense to hit the dogs on The List. The dogs insurance companies do not like because of their empirical data. The dogs that idiotic owners' ignorant mistakes will cost the public money in injuries and deaths.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

homeowners are more responsible?? seriously?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I do not have all the answers. 

I think that maybe getting a dog license in general should require a background check so that you cannot get a dog if you have a conviction for animal cruelty or neglect. 

I think that you should not be cleared for a type II dog license (powerful breeds) if you have any felony convictions, any conviction for animal cruelty or neglect. 

I think that instead of home ownership, in order to purchase a type II dog license, you should maybe have to prove ownership of property for a period of time, or being the renter -- in charge of paying the rent/utilities/etc for a period of time and require the signature on the application of the landlord. 

A type II dog license should be required for any breeds or mixes of breeds whose breeding was for dogs that were primarily to guard or to fight.

A type I dog license would be for hunting breeds, toy breeds, and mixes of hunting and toy breeds.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Dainerra said:


> homeowners are more responsible?? seriously?


Not always, but they at least have something to lose. 

I rented, I currently own. Yes I do have to be more responsible. When the hot water tank goes, I cannot call the landlord. 

But while homeowners may walk away from the mortgage, it is a lot more than pulling out of a lease or getting out of a rental agreement. there is some stability to owning ones own home. 

It means you are there for the long run, not just for a season or two. 

And you do not have the bad excuse that the landlord said the dog had to go. 

Home owners are responsible for accidents, etc that happen on their property. 

They have something to lose.

Also, you had to have some means of income and credit history to get a bank to agree to give you a loan for the house.


----------



## ISABELLA'S MOM (Jul 26, 2010)

I totally disagree with cagirl. There should never be a ban on a dog breed, there should be a law about who can own them. And severe punishment for those who abuse them and make them into aggressive dogs. That should solve the problem. And I have personally found that a chihuahua tends to be much more likely to bite than a pit. And some people on here should remember that GSD's can be in the same category as pits so if you love your dog then don't bash other breeds. Just saying


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Isabella's Mom, it is not about bashing other breeds. I am afraid that the US will go the route some other countries went and actually ban these breeds. If bully breed owners, and owners of other breeds likely to be targeted by the criminal element and or legislators, do not do something to address the problem behind the desire for breed specific legislation, than we are definitely in trouble.

It is not just like sheps, and rotties, and dobes. I think the pit-bull thing is bigger and badder than ever before. Banning the breed is not the answer, but that does not mean it won't happen. 

I think people should be pro-active while there is yet time, and work on restricting ownership of all these breeds so that we can make ownership of these dogs an achievement, something not to be taken lightly. 

I just do not know how you could set up a non biased set of requirements to ownership without offending a whole lot of people. But if they do something like that, then other large guarding type breeds -- breeds Harry Potter's Hagrid would approve of -- should jump on the bandwagon for their breeds as well, so that the idiots who are out there ruining dog breed reputations do not just move on to them.


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

Personally, I do not like judging how good or responsible a dog owner you are by you holding down a home, or making your payments on time... I know of a homeless man right now who takes better care of his large breed than some homeowners I know. His dog is never let loose, and it's well-behaved. He feeds it before himself... They snuggle up under bridges at night. That man couldn't afford new shoes to keep his feet from burning on the summer streets, much less fines for owning a dog when he doesn't have proof of being responsible... And would AC take his dog, his only companion, comfort, protector, because of that? Because it is what looks to be an Shepherd mix... a Powerful large dog. 



There will always be dogs in bad hands, always has been. Whether it be a specific breed or mutts. People will use them. You take the shepherds away, they will get bullies, you take the bullies away, they'll get rotties, take them away, and we're onto Presa's... I'm sure you guys remember the darling baby shepherd mix pup I worked away from a group of young thugs, they were already trying to make her little self mean, and she's a 100% mutt. As soon as I took her away they got a black pit puppy, but she wouldn't bite so they tied her in a backyard and forgot about her. 

The whole thing needs a lot of thought. But until something miraculous happens, it needs to be case-by-case. One incident at a time with dog's proven vicious..


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

At one incident at a time, you all are condemning your breed. 

Wait until there is a _reported_ incident -- it may be a young child dead or someone seriously mauled. 

The owner is a homeless man, a man on parole, a junkie woman with three kids, a large family that rented the place last week, a teenage gangsta wannabe, a couple of red neck boys who just shot their GSD in the head six times. 

The family of the victim are urged to sue. Sue? They will not even be able to pay for the ER doctor. Sue. There is a huge write up in the paper. People are insensed. People come forward and say the dog did this, the people thought it was funny. They say the people were training it to bite. etc etc etc. 

Maybe they can charge them with gross negligence, manslaughter (if the victim is dead), but most likely, these people are losers and sending another one through the over-flowing court systems isn't going to help anyone. 

The dog is euthanized. But it isn't enough. Why does this continue to happen? Why do we read about this in newspapers and see it on the news? The people in the fury of their emotions contact their assemblyman and say they want something done. 

What can they do? 

Well, for starters they can ban this type of dog, and while they're at it, they can ban a bunch of other dog breeds that are similar or have similar reputations. 

BSL gets people going, but dead baby pictures do too. Usually by the time there is an incident it is a tragedy. 1000 bully dogs does not equal one two year old. There are a lot of people who think that way. There are millions of dog owners in this country, but only a fraction of those are dog-people. 

If you wait around for incidents to deal with cases on a case by case basis, then you are probably going to see a lot more bans and a lot more dogs euthanized because simply, it only takes one serious injury or death to start the ball rolling with BSL.


----------



## ISABELLA'S MOM (Jul 26, 2010)

I just think that all breeds should be treated the same because all dogs have the potential to bite and I have owned pit bulls in the past and other breeds and granted Bella's my first GSD but I have always loved this breed and I hate to think that now they could ban them in CO Springs soon and I would love to do something to help these dogs but I really don't know where to start and it's probably best I don't make the rules because I probably would offend a lot of people..lol.. I just wish that people would get to know the breed personally instead of stereotyping it just because of it's name and punish the people not the dog.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

My parents' neighbors had one, the nicest little thing. Got wrapped up in Cujo's chain one day along with their overweight pug dog. 

Mom asked me what I thought she did. I said, she put Cujo inside and called the cops. (My mom was very ill at the time, recovering from having her intestines chopped out.) They have a chain in the back and put Cujo out for five to ten minutes -- they set the timer. 

But mom said no. She went out there and untangled their dogs, had to take the collar off of the pittie to get it loose. But it was the pug that kept trying to bite her. 

This pit was a normal-sized pit, maybe 35 pounds. The owner would let the pit and the pug drag her down the street. But whatever. 

So I have met nice pits. A friend in training classes has a huge pit and he is the nicest dog ever, but, no, I would rather get bitten by the rottweiler. 

Why is this? The Rotty is bred as a guard dog. They are big. The bitch I am thinking about is probably 85 pounds. But it has no terrier in it. The American Pit Bull Terrier was a mixture between bull dogs and terriers. The bull dog was a dog with the power to manage cattle. The terrier was added to this very substantial dog to add a stick-to-it-tiveness that can turn a bad experience into a nightmare. The dogs are bred to fight, to be courageous, to continue through pain, and to go go go. 

Unless you train sheps and dobes and rottys to do this, they really bite once or twice usually they do not rip and tear and maul and continue on and on until you stop moving. 

So why should someone with an English Setter which is about the most benign dog I have ever met, have the same restrictions of a person with a APBT or Preso Canario? 

People who choose these dogs want the dog regardless of the breed's reputation, power, aggressiveness, potential to damage. Since there seems to be so many more incidents with dogs bred for fighting, then maybe dogs bred for fighting should be treated a bit different by dog-legislation. 

Should nobody be allowed to own these dogs? I do not think that should be the case. But people who do choose to own these dogs should be required to carry insurance on them, and they should be required to have an approved containment system for the dog. 

Too many of these dogs get out of their fencing. There needs to be some standards in how these dogs are contained when people are not right with them. 

I do not like muzzling dogs that have never shown a problem. I think that is overkill. But I think they could produce some breed specific legislation that could make things safer for everyone while the dogs are not simply banned. 

The thing is banning the dogs is a whole lot easier. Your dog warden is not going to go house to house to find pit bulls and check their containment areas and review your insurance policies. Too much work. Much easier for them to wait for an incident, say that the dog is illegal anyway, and then have it euthanized. The problem with this is that once they are banned, those nasty neighbors two doors down that you complained about last spring are now going to call AC and tell them that you have an illegal dog. 

It is much easier for a legislative body to ban several breeds of dogs and their mixes, then it is for them to set requirements and enforce them.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Doesn't make much difference to me - I don't think I would enjoy being bitten by ANY big dog. I once took a Rottie on a sleeve - WOW! the power in that bite was amazing!

The other point in BSL is where does it stop/ Can anyone really list all of the breeds that you think it is needed? Are all of the bully breeds the same and need to be treated the same? How about the other fighting dogs? Working dogs? herding dogs? GSD's? Etc.

Then we have the owner requirements that some folks seem to like to have?

Same rules for all about dog bites and/or dog/dog or dog/people aggression.


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

The way I see it.

Say we ban Dobermans, there are millions of people out there that absolutely love their Dobermans, their are forums just like this one that is dedicated to the Doberman breed. If we are for the Doberman breed ban than they'll come after OUR GSD's next. How would we feel if all of our GSD's weren't allowed in the US anymore? If you have a dog, especially if you have a purebred dog, you should not be for the BSL, you should be against it.

There are 75 breeds on the BSL list, how many of you own one of those breeds or a mix of that breed?

EXACTLY


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

My parents live in a small rural town in Western Kentucky. One resident had a pit bull that attacked a child while she was riding her bike. They fined the owners, and PTS the dog. 

The same owners got another Pitt shortly afterwards and before it was a year old, it attacked their 4 year old son and killed him. Both parents were charged and required to do time in jail. The dog was PTS. 

Obviously the town was shocked by the attack and moved to ban Pits. While they were at it, they banned numerous other breeds as well. In one swoop. Now they are talking about banning any dog considered 'large'. 

It is truly like a witch hunt there now. If somebody thinks your dog looks like a GSD, or Rott, or Pitt, (etc.) they file a grievance agaisnt you and you have to appear in court to prove your dog isn't. If you can't, you have to remove your dog. 

My dad has a mutt - some sort of retriever mix. He is worried that they are going to force him to remove the dog, because he doesn't know what exactly what all she is mixed with. The dog is vetted, and healthy and fixed and well loved and was adopted through a rescue. He has a farm outside of town, and is considering chaining her out at the farm so he won't have to have her PTS. It breaks my heart. 

The resulting witch hunt has encourage people to dump their dogs as well. They don't want to get involved with the legalities of protecting their 'old farm dog'. 

It is truly scarey what the majority can do. Truly scarey. This run away train was caused by ONE family who (to me) had no buisness with a dog of any kind. ONE family who had TWO attacks by thier dogs.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

I have the answer to the WHOLE problem.

*People *should be required to be LICENSED before they can own a dog.

We don't let people drive cars without a license - it's the same principle.

People would be required to go to a training class on proper dog care (maybe 1-2 hours) BEFORE getting their license.

They are are given a temp permit so they can GET the dog. After a set period of time (maybe a couple months) they are required to go to a evaluation center WITH the dog to show they are properly caring for it and can control it. Then they can receive their permanent license.

But - they are required to return once a year to renew their license (with the dog).


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

That would be governmental interference, though I think it would be good for people to have licenses to have kids too!


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

Lauri, the problems I see with that are that the majority of dog owners wouldn't do that... and the resources and man power it would take to go to every home and look for unregistered dogs/unlicensed owners would be immense... And for people like me who have unstable/very nervy dogs like Jaeger would be forced to kill a dog who, in my hands, is not a threat. I don't put him in situations to react badly... 


I shall post more later, I have to take my big dummy out..


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

codmaster said:


> Jessie - sounds like you are FOR breed specific legislation? Is that true?
> 
> "Pit bulls" today "enjoy" the same noteriety that Dobes, GSD's, and Rotties have enjoyed in various periods in the past. Great popularity from the news media whenever the breed does anything bad.
> 
> ...


Ummmm no I am not for BSL, I am against it you read my post wrong. I never said pitbulls were worse than Rotties. I work with both at my shelter. One of the reasons my insurance will not let us own dogs is because they think they are "dangerous when they aren't.

So please do not twist my words.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

codmaster said:


> Jessie - sounds like you are FOR breed specific legislation? Is that true?
> 
> "Pit bulls" today "enjoy" the same noteriety that Dobes, GSD's, and Rotties have enjoyed in various periods in the past. Great popularity from the news media whenever the breed does anything bad.
> 
> ...


I was quoting selzer on something she said, so I think you also misinterpreted it.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

selzer said:


> Isabella's Mom, it is not about bashing other breeds. I am afraid that the US will go the route some other countries went and actually ban these breeds. If bully breed owners, and owners of other breeds likely to be targeted by the criminal element and or legislators, do not do something to address the problem behind the desire for breed specific legislation, than we are definitely in trouble.
> 
> It is not just like sheps, and rotties, and dobes. I think the pit-bull thing is bigger and badder than ever before. Banning the breed is not the answer, but that does not mean it won't happen.
> 
> ...


Little people bias showing here maybe?

Requirements to ownership? In the words of a famous old tennis player "You can not be serious!".

Maybe a requirement that only home owners can own dogs! And only with a fenced back yard! And only if they promise to raise them "right' - (defined as how I think that dogs should be raised)!

What about large herding breeds? Or should just guarding dogs be included?


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Jessiewessie99 said:


> I was quoting selzer on something she said, so I think you also misinterpreted it.


I did notice that you didn't (couldn't?) answer any of my questions.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

codmaster said:


> I did notice that you didn't (couldn't?) answer any of my questions.


Ummm yes I did. I am against BSL as I said earlier. I do NOT think a Pits bite is stronger or worse than a Rottie's. Never did I say that. I work with both breeds at my shelter.

Please re-read my post(s) again. I answered them.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

Jessiewessie99 said:


> Ummmm no I am not for BSL, I am against it you read my post wrong. I never said pitbulls were worse than Rotties. I work with both at my shelter. One of the reasons my insurance will not let us own dogs is because they think they are "dangerous when they aren't.
> 
> So please do not twist my words.


Here is my post where I answered your questions.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

codmaster said:


> Little people bias showing here maybe?
> 
> Requirements to ownership? In the words of a famous old tennis player "You can not be serious!".
> 
> ...


 
Who said fenced back yard? I think that would be the worst thing. Pitties are always busting loose out of fencing. I said something to the affect of appropriate containment. To me that is a kennel with concrete, heavy duty steel or heavy chain link, covered over and LOCKED. 

No one should be able to say the neighbor's four year old came over and opened the kennel and got himself killed. Not good enough!

All along codmaster, I have been including dobes and rotts and even GSDs. I think we need to restrict ownership to people who are more likely to be responsible. 

People should have to acquire a license to get a dog. To get a license there should be requirements. The requirements for a fluff dog might not be as extensive as a formidable dog, but it should be more than dropping a ten spot and getting a piece of aluminum with a number on it. 

Maybe I AM a little less accepting of people with criminal backgrounds owning dogs. They do not make the best owners. They live where housing is cheap and dogs are disposable, often neglected and abused. They hang with people who are not known for making great decisions. No, I do not think they should own dogs. 

People like the family above who had the town ban many, many breeds and mixes because of their irresponsibility. People waited for a tragedy to happen. Two tragedies. People went case by case. Go case by case, and the next thing you know, all the interesting breeds are banned. 

What is so wrong with having to either own a home or have an insurance policy on the dogs? What is wrong with ensuring that the applicant not have any animal cruelty convictions, or felony convictions? I think that by requiring a licence prior to purchase, and a license that means something, we can keep some dogs out of the worst owners hands. If it saves 500,000 dogs from idiot owners would it be worth it? If it reduces incidents by 50% is it worth it? If it saves ten dogs? If it saves 1 child?


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

selzer said:


> Who said fenced back yard? I think that would be the worst thing. Pitties are always busting loose out of fencing. I said something to the affect of appropriate containment. To me that is a kennel with concrete, heavy duty steel or heavy chain link, covered over and LOCKED.
> * Steel what?*
> No one should be able to say the neighbor's four year old came over and opened the kennel and got himself killed. Not good enough! *How about just a simple lock? No pools either since a child could drown in one!*
> 
> ...


*In a word, NO! Your idea of licensing is not!*


You are pulling our legs, right?

So someone with a fenced back yard can NOT have any of the bully breeds. no fences allowed, right?

So if a person has a criminal record they can't have a dog, right? Doesn't matter what the record is for?

BTW, in one place you say criminal record and in another a felony conviction. These could be different, couldn't they. I.E. a misdemeanor conviction???

And if I own a home, then I don't need to get an insurance policy on the dog but I can not afford to buy a home or choose to live in an apartment; then I cannot qualify (or don't deserve) for a dog owning license, correct?

I detect a definite anti Pit bias. Were you ever bitten/threatened by a pit bull?


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

I don't think someone's criminal record should keep them from owning a dog. Unless they are in prison for animal abuse or something.

Some prisons actually have programs where the inmates take care of or work with dogs or other animals(shelter animals) and they use bully breeds or bully breed mixes.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

No, what I said is that a fenced yard would not be a requirement. Too many people feel their fenced yard is containment enough. It really is not enough for a GSD and it is not enough for a pit bull/bully breed. Sorry if you disagree. I think that if you have one of these dogs you cannot just leave it in a fenced yard. A fenced yard can be anything, cheap six foot privacy panels that ANY dog could chew through. 

Apropriate containment, welded steel mesh or heavy chain link, something that a dog cannot break through or chew through. Those 9x13 box kennels with 13 gage chain link are NOT good enough to hold a formidable dog.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

what about people who own their home, but live in a community that doesn't allow fencing? they wouldn't be able to build a kennel like you describe, even though they meet the other "criteria" that you put forth?

sorry, but money doesn't make someone a good dog owner! people who are wealthy are just as likely to abandon their dog as anyone else. they are just as likely to be irresponsible, though they may have better lawyers to keep them out of trouble. 

the problem with making a strict licensing program is that the people most likely to be irresponsible are also most likely to not bother getting licensed anyway. Also, who gets to decide what is appropriate? The government already has laws on animal welfare, which most of us consider too lenient. With the strong breed bias that the public has, they are likely to go to the opposite extreme. They won't outright ban "formidable" breeds, but could make the requirements so strict that no one can afford to adhere to them.


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

The list of 'formidable' breeds is endless... And the complete mutts, heinz 57's? they can look pretty intimidating and be strong as a bull... Everything from Cattle dogs to danes to beagles. Yes, beagles. Friend of mine's beagle very nearly killed their westie, imagine if it was a small child, not a tough breed of dog meant for tenacity he was after? 



One of the few dogs that have made me truly uneasy was a pair of labs, Sarge and Abby, I think - they left an impression - pure bred chocolate labs. They were so vicious to strangers I pulled mace out any time I passed their home, because they would go insane, even biting the fencing 20' away form me out of frustration at not being able to get at me. Luckily the day they got out I had my own pair of dogs, my GSDs... And those dogs curred out as soon as my two got a hold on them, their owner had to come get them because they wouldn't let us walk, they were circling and darting in every now and then. This was a wealthy man and his family... not some lowly criminal.


I agree that people with animal cruelty charges shouldn't be allowed to own animals, but that has nothing to do with BSL. Other criminal things, even human on human violence, should not come into play with dogs. One of my family members has a record, mostly vehicle charges, but others including taking it too far when he got into fights with other people... he rents a home, he's not very responsible when it comes to his money or other things.. He owns two dogs himself and a leopard gecko and I wouldn't put them in anyone else's home. He has them contained, exercised, fed and medically cared for, not to mention the abundance of training and love he has in them.

You have murders in jail who train and care for animals so they can be placed. I almost adopted a GSD pup from one such place. 


And as for what makes a person responsible? I can say that people who are irresponsible when it comes to keeping their car in good shape or paying bills, or keeping a tidy place are not necessarily going to treat a life the same. The old homeless man I spoke of earlier is a much better dog owner than the guy down the road with three cars, his own home, extra cash, no record and two dogs. 


I have a friend who lives in one of those communities that do not allow fencing, pools, or weeds in your garden lol and she would be not be able to build a kennel as suggested, nor a tie-out. She's have to walk her dog out for bathroom needs or exercise... She rents the home and is Section 8. Yet she does her part and cares for her family and pets well.

Income, record, location... These do not really come into play when it comes to owning an animal. I know that my animals come first, I've gone hungry days to feed them, my animals are never loose, never had AC come to my home because of a complaint, I live next to the projects and in a crapy neighborhood. I probably would not meet the standards for some dog-ownership-control project... 


Here is a list of some dogs... who, by size alone can be dangerous, but also because of what work they are bred for, should be included as pit bull dogs, German Shepherds, and rotties would be for an ownership control idea..

American Bully 

Akita

Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog

Anatolian Shepherd 

Caucasian Mountain Dog

Dogue de Bordeaux 

Great Dane

Great Pyrenees

Greater Swiss Mountian Dog

Irish Wolfhound

Kuvasz

English Mastiff

Neopolitian Mastiff

Newfoundland

Saint Bernard

Scottish Deerhound

Tibetan Mastiff 

American Staffordshire Terrier 

American Bulldog

American Water Spaniel 

Australian Cattle Dog 

Basset Hound

Bearded Collie

Border Collie 

Brittany Spaniel

Bulldogs(there are many english bulldog like breeds)

Old English Bulldog

Canaan Dog 

Chinese Shar-Pei 

Chow Chow


English Springer Spaniel

Field Spaniel 

Harrier

Keeshond

Kerry Blue Terrier

Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever

Pharoah Hound 

Polish Lowland Sheepdog 

Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier

Standard Poodle 

Standard Schnauzer

Sussex Spaniel 

Welsh Springer Spaniel

Afghan Hound

Airedale Terrier 

Alaskan Malamute

American Foxhound 

American Pit Bull Terrier

Australian Shepherd

Beauceron

Belgian Malanois

Belgian Sheepdog

Belgian Tervuren

Bernese Mountain Dog

Black and Tan Coonhound

Black Russian Terrier

Bloodhound

Borzoi

Bouvier des Flandres

Boxer

Briard

Bullmastiff

Bull Terrier

Cane Corso

Chesapeake Bay Retriever 

Collie

Curly Coated Retriever

Dalmation

Doberman

English Foxhound

English Setter 

Flat Coated Retriever

German Shepherd

German Shorthaired Pointer 

German Wirehaired Pointer

Giant Schnauzer 

Golden Retriever

Gordon Setter

Greyhound

Ibizian Hound 

Irish Setter 

Irish Water Spaniel

Komondor

Labrador Retriever

Leonberger

Old English Sheepdog

Otterhound

Pointer
Plott Hound

Portuguese Water Dog

Redbone Coonhound 

Rhodesian Ridgeback

Rottweiler

Saluki

Samoyed

Siberian Husky

Spinone Italiano 

Tosa Inu

Vizsla

Weimaraner

Wirehaired Pointing Griffon


There are many more dog breeds who are big, tenacious, tough, or intimidating that I do not have time to list... If you say guardian, fighting, hunting, or large breeds should be regulated...


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

APBTLove said:


> The list of 'formidable' breeds is endless... And the complete mutts, heinz 57's? they can look pretty intimidating and be strong as a bull... Everything from Cattle dogs to danes to beagles. Yes, beagles. Friend of mine's beagle very nearly killed their westie, imagine if it was a small child, not a tough breed of dog meant for tenacity he was after?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Dainerra said:


> what about people who own their home, but live in a community that doesn't allow fencing? they wouldn't be able to build a kennel like you describe, even though they meet the other "criteria" that you put forth?
> 
> sorry, but money doesn't make someone a good dog owner! people who are wealthy are just as likely to abandon their dog as anyone else. they are just as likely to be irresponsible, though they may have better lawyers to keep them out of trouble.
> 
> the problem with making a strict licensing program is that the people most likely to be irresponsible are also most likely to not bother getting licensed anyway. Also, who gets to decide what is appropriate? The government already has laws on animal welfare, which most of us consider too lenient. With the strong breed bias that the public has, they are likely to go to the opposite extreme. They won't outright ban "formidable" breeds, but could make the requirements so strict that no one can afford to adhere to them.


Dainerra, most people is communities that ban fencing have basements and could put an appropriate kennel in their basement for those times when the dog is not with the owner. 

Or the kennel can be inside the garage. 

Or the dog can be properly crated in the house and left outside on lead. 

What the general public does not want are dogs pushing through a cheap fence and getting to a dog or people walking down the street minding their own business. They also do not want children to be able to unlatch the gate and wonder in.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Ok, 

Here is a scenario. 

I am unemployed and my cobra benefits have run out and I have NO health insurance. 

If I am walking down the street with my puppy, and someone's formidable dog breaks through their back yard fencing to accost me and my puppy, and I step in front of my puppy and call for the owners. The dog charges and sinks it teeth into my leg and wrestles back and forth with it tearing at my tendons. 

After several minutes three kids come out of the house and stick their fingers in their mouths watching the dog EAT my leg. Finally their dad comes out yelling and is able to separate me from the dog. I call 911 and am taken to the ER. 

The dog has no reports of violence before. 

I need surgery on my leg and lengthy therapy and skin grafts to make it heal. 

Who should pay the medical bills? 

The family is in section 8 housing and has no renter's insurance that covers the dog. 
They have nothing to go after. Who will pay. 

The landlord has a strict rule against them owning any dog, and did not know that the dog existed. 

Who should pay?

The landlord is up to his ears in debt and if he must he will just go bankrupt and my medical bills for this will not be paid even if I hire an attorney and go after him. 

Who will end up paying? 

Since I do not have the money, and they cannot take my house for medical bills -- not worth it anyhow as the mortgage is upside down, they will put a lean on it, and the hospital will write it off as a bad debt. Why is that ok?

Who in the end pays for this? 

Society pays. 

Society passes laws to prevent these scenarios because they should not have to foot the bill. 

If people have to own a home or have an insurance policy, a liability policy covering the dogs, then people who own these dogs will be paying insurance so that IF one of them causes such a problem there is money to cover the costs. 

Why did I step in front of my puppy? Because while society will pay, the ER will treat me with or without insurance. The same is not true for my puppy. If the dog tears into my puppy and I do not have the money for the veterinary care and surgeries the pup may require, it is tough luck for me and my pup. Why is THAT ok???

I am frankly tired of hearing about people who have no means to pay for the damages of their dogs owning these dogs and allowing them to run amok. Lots of people are. Banning the breeds is easy. It does not solve anything, but when one is found running at large, it is contained and euthanized -- oh well. If they are banned. When people own a banned breed and it attacks, they are criminally negligent and held with higher penalties. 

I would rather see restrictions put on ownership, than breed bans. 

BTW, there are laws about fencing around pools. Pools and dogs are considered an attractive nuisance. Children are attracted to them. It is up to the homeowner to ensure that children cannot get themselves injured or killed by pools or dogs on your property.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Toughen up fines and punishments for owners who have dogs which have attacked, no matter the breed.

In the meantime carry this on your walks:














[ame]http://www.amazon.com/FRONTIERSMAN-Bear-Attack-Deterrent-Holster/dp/B002E6VAHK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=sporting-goods&qid=1280413706&sr=8-1[/ame]


----------



## APBTLove (Feb 23, 2009)

selzer said:


> Ok,
> 
> Here is a scenario.
> 
> ...


Yep, we have a pool/fence law here... Fence must be a certain height to have a decent-sized pool... While the kid would be trespassing, and the parents obviously negligent, I don't have a problem with restricting pools lol They're inanimate and it won't destroy a family to have their pool dragged away by strangers because they were too poor to buy proper things to own their pool...


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

ok, using Selzer's scenario ----

the person has already violated the terms of the lease, endangered their children (another law), allowed a dog to roam at large (against the law in most areas), allowed a dog to assault a person (against the law of common sense if nothing else), the list goes on and on. 
What makes you think that, just because there is now a law that says you must do A,B, and C to own this dog, that they would say "OOOPS, better not own a dog" Irresponsible people will be irresponsible no matter what. 

Even if the person had a kennel as you specified, how do you guarantee they will use it? That at some point of some day they will decide it's easier to just open the door to let their dog pee than to walk them out to the kennel? You can't, because you CAN NOT legislate responsibility and common sense.


----------



## jan & jim (Jan 22, 2009)

First off I have to say that I believe I understand the point that Selzer is trying to make. I would also like to state that I do not believe in breed banning. However, I do believe that there is a problem out there with certain breeds due to irresponsible owners. When the public's perception is that certain breeds are a health hazard, lawmakers are going to respond. 

My question is this: If our beloved GSDs were the ones in the same position as the so-called "Bully Breeds" are now, what would you be doing to mount an effective defense against an anti-GSD law? What alternatives would you offer the local or state politicians to address the problem? 
Jim


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

I have met some people who are not so rich or poor who treat their dogs alot better than some rich upper class people do. I am not saying all poor or middle class people are like that, and that all rich upper class people are like that, its something I noticed.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

I'm not sure that there IS an alternative to fear mongering. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The media/politicians/public view a certain breed as mean. Irresponsible people looking for a "mean" dog buy that breed. The dog is mistreated and mishandled and bites someone. The media screams "another attack" from the roof top.

On a grassroots level, we can band together and show what our individual dogs are. We can push for enforcement of existing leash laws and animal cruelty laws. But I don't know if that is enough to overcome hysteria. Politicians generally don't care if BSL and similar measures actually work. They want to be seen as doing SOMETHING, even if the outcome is the opposite of what they want to accomplish. By the time people realize that, the politician will already be re-elected and moved on to the newest "hot button" issue.

So, I guess local one-on-one education, being an active voice in your local council, pushing for enforcement of existing laws, etc


----------



## abby (Mar 13, 2010)

I dont think that BSL is necessarily the answer as there are a lot of responsible owners, unfortunately its the irresponsible ones that give certain dogs bad reputations. Would dog licensing and compulsory microchipping, stronger leash laws, and bans on ownerships ( when bites, loose dogs, dangerous dogs etc) be a better way forward?
It is hard because OH and i were talking yesterday about it and he said it goes against the constitution, does anybody with two dogs have the right to breed "yes" should they yes/no/maybe 
Should people be allowed a certain type of dog because they love that type "yes" is it right for their lifestyle who knows?
I think to blanket ban breeds is silly we had the dangerous dog act in england did it stop dog fighting etc no, did it stop dogs biting people no, other breeds made the headlines instead rottweilers etc.
Well thats my 2 cents


----------



## Klamari (Aug 6, 2010)

I know this is an old thread but just thought I would give my two cents  

I think we should have tougher fines/jail time for owners whose dogs attack someone. To say that we should make owners of pit bulls get a permit to own the dog is not a solution because to determine what is "responsible" dog ownership is very subjective. You cannot legislate something like that. The definition of a "responsible" owner is not straightforward or set in stone and therefore you cannot keep someone from owning a dog, when they have done nothing wrong so far, just beause they do not line up with what YOU consider responsible ownership. 

Selzer made a point about having proper containment for the dog in order to get this permit. Well then how are you going to ensure that these pit owners with permits can control their dogs while out walking on a leash? Are we going to say now that these owners have to be of a certain height and weight to be able to control a dog that MIGHT POSSIBLY become out of control? Then are they going to say that females can't own pits, beause the average female is not as strong as the average male? (notice the "average" there, dont jump my case). 

I agree that there is a problem with dog attacks. Not specifically pit bulls, but dog attacks and the owners of these dogs getting off with just fines when they have, in fact, actually done somthing wrong by not controlling their dog. But trying to keep irresponsible people from owning dogs with permit legislation is NOT goingn to solve the problem. These irresposible people will not follow the rules. Hence, the definition of irresponsible. And THEN, all the other tax paying responsible americans have to shell out the cash to implement more useless preventative legislation. 

I think 10yrs in a federal prison, OR hard labor that serves the community, for a dog attack will be a much more effective deterant for irresponsible dog owners to take steps to better control their dogs.


----------



## GSD Fan (Sep 20, 2010)

This is a bit silly, but this reminds me of these games I used to play growing up. The games were Pokemon and in one of the Pokemon books, it said something like "There is no such thing as an evil pokemon, rather evil trainers who use their pokemon for evil things".

I think it's the same way with not only the so called dangerous breeds, but any dog.


----------

