Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Chit-Chat' started by PHBeerman, Jul 21, 2005.
Nice owners name Stef'ny. Outta impound the parents on that one.
IMO banning breeds is fairly useless. I don't know how that would stand up to scrutiny - it is a subjective thing. The bad guys will go find other breeds. This of course does not change my stance on pitbull type dogs - I don't trust 'em and would be happy to live in a world where they don't exist. (same goes for any aggressive dog that bites to kill)
City of aurora is looking at the same thing or at least requiring temperment testing and insureance.
"If anyone says one dog is more likely to kill — unless there's a study out there that I haven't seen — that's not based on scientific data," said Julie Gilchrist, a doctor at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who researches dog bites.
Hmm..isn't there a study that has already shown that? Maybe not 'more likely', but that more deaths happen from pitbulls than any other breed? I thought so...I agree with some counter-points in that article that it's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, but something has to be done, when kids, adults, families are terrified and stalked and killed, and throwing owners in jail doesn't change it, then the next step is to remove the animal, since at that point they are a public problem, no different from a wild coyote or wolf, infact far MORE dangerous than a coyote of a wolf IMO, since they have lost all fear of people.
I'm not at all a pit bull fan, but I disagree with how this ban is being implemented in Denver. I think it leaves too much in the hands of the Animal Control officers to deterine what is or isn't a pit bull. Based on the article...if it looks like a pit bull, they'll pick it up. In my area, Animal Control officers are part of the police department and NOT NECESSARILY dog breed experts. If someone thinks a Bull Terrier looks like a pit bull...they'd be working within their guidelines to pick it up.
It's sort of like saying, "Hey, he looks like a Mexican, he must be illegal. Deport him!" or "Hey, he looks like a Muslim, he must be a terrorist. Arrest him!"
There's got to be a better way to deal with this problem.
I was raised with Pit Bulls, great dogs and I would have one now for the family if I hadnt rescued our little mutt.
I remember once in the late 80s there was an article in the Rocky Mtn News about how dangerous Pits were and it took the attack rates of several dogs and lised them showing the Pit was in the top 5. Problem was it said 3. Pit Bull/Chow. Odd, cominbe two dogs that arent related so they can both make the list.
Pit Bulls are no different then any other breed of dog. Poor breeding and upbringing causes the same problems. I have seen very viscious Rots and Dobies and German Shepards. Pit Bulls have been the subject of overhype by the media and misunderstanding by the public which has lead to their abuse...
I have been around TONS of Pits, fighting dogs, stray Pits that we just picked up and I have never even been snapped at. Been bit by dogs TWICE! Once by a Dalmation and once by some little stupid mutt.
This makes me VERY glad I don't live in Denver. I have a 50/50 pitbull/bulldog mix. I've had him since he was 6 weeks old and he's 7 now. He's an awesome dog. I won't say he isn't aggressive, he barks like mad at people who knock on the door, and he jumps up on people from time to time, but he's certainly no killer. But he does have a tendancy to lick our guests a little excessively. Like most vets will say, it's all in how they are raised. I have a friend with 3 pure pitbulls, and a boston terrier. The boston terrier is the boss, the pitbulls are all wimps.
Where's Eric when the dogs really need him? J/K
I think the problem is the damage they do when they do go bad. I know my pit mix has some serious jaw power.
Also heard that the dog that has the most bite incidents needing a doctor visit is the extremely vicious...
...black lab??? They should be next on the list.
I agree with Doug. This is a slippery slope.
I agree with there being better ways to deal with problems. I don't think they are picking up every half breed they see at least that is not what I hear through a friend that works for one of the largest animal shelters here.
IMO I think the problem has less to do with the breed and more to do with the people that own them.
They showed some moron city councilwoman stating "It's not that they attack more, it's the damage they do when they do attack." not an exact qoute, but pretty close. Not exactly a good arguement in my book. Kinda like saying we should ban Big Rigs because "it's not that they get in more accidents, it's the damage that occurs when they do.
Ottumwa, Iowa has a similar law on the books for about 4 years now. Small rural town, apparently big problems with these dogs in the past. I feel sorry for the ones that have done nothing wrong. I'm sure this is not the correct way to handle the problem.
If someone wanted to ban Siberians and Mals I'd be pretty pissed off.
I think it's a fair and reasonable statment and if you don't agree with it oh well. Further it's really not a fair comparison that you make but that's another story.
This was all over talk radio in Albuquerque today. I hate aggressive dogs and am suspicious of people inclined to keep them.
That said, the law as described on the radio surely won't stand up to a "no unreasonable search or seizure" constitutionality analysis.
Thats taking it a little far in my opinion. They should definately focus on the bad owners rather than banning any dog that looks like a pitbull. I used to have a Mountain View Cur. He was a dog bred for racoon hunting in Tennesee. That dog sounded mean when playing and would put the fear of God in someone with his bark. He also happened to be the nicest dog I have ever owned. People used to think that because his bark was so deep that he was beating up my Brittany when they were playing.
you step on my property, my dog bites. always ring first???
Why do you say that?
It may be a "fair and reasonable statement", but not in the context of defending a decision to ban an entire breed. Especially a ban that covers such a wide variation of mixes. I would say that it would be a fair and reasonable statement if it were defending implementation of a Pit Bull Owner Licensing program of some sort. Such as requiring owners of known Pit Bull mixes to attend a class on responsible ownership, instead of making criminals of law abiding citizens whose family pet happens to be a certain breed. As usual, it all comes down to responsible ownership, and problems stem from a lack thereof.
My comparison was not intended to be fair, as I don't believe the ban is even remotely fair. Both are extreme, and I simply used a ridiculous example to counter what I believe is a ridiculous law, IMHO.
Without just cause and a warrant the cops can't just come into your house and confiscate your wife, your guns, or your dirty underwear. I've seen nothing that states that the cops grabbing the dogs in Denver are presenting the owners with any official document.