• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner action

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,655
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I have noticed how common these BSLs are in my state. I also cannot comprehend how validly stupid these laws are. They do not reduce bites. They also do not recognize the reality of who is doing the biting and why.

Take for instance...a pit bull who is taken into a public atmosphere (say a park filled with people). This dog is well behaved and LOVES people. It doesn't have a problem with dogs either. It has been well trained. It never bites anyone. It was raised by Gary The Dog Whisperer.

Now take Lance The Problem owner. He owns a pit bull that is dominant. It doesn't care for other dogs. And it is afraid of people. And his owner paid $600 for this dog and has him with a spike collar and clipped his ears. He didn't even get him cut. Lance walks his dog to the same area and his dog bites someone.

Are you going to blame Gary and his sweet dog? Or are you going to blame lance for being part of the problem? This is the stupidity that is BSL. Stating that "one dog is more likely to bite" is silly. Any breed of dog can bite. They all pose risk of infection, and the problem has nothing to do with the dog itself. Certain dogs are more difficult to raise than others. I will give that. I own a pit and a chihuahua (sigh...) and both are sweet. But they are for experienced owners. And that is my point. Why should I as an experienced owner who has been taught dog handling from a Vet, be punished for the actions of someone who buys a dog to look like a bad ass and never trains it?
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,800
Reaction score
43,008
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

I have noticed how common these BSLs are in my state. I also cannot comprehend how validly stupid these laws are. They do not reduce bites. They also do not recognize the reality of who is doing the biting and why.

Take for instance...a pit bull who is taken into a public atmosphere (say a park filled with people). This dog is well behaved and LOVES people. It doesn't have a problem with dogs either. It has been well trained. It never bites anyone. It was raised by Gary The Dog Whisperer.

Now take Lance The Problem owner. He owns a pit bull that is dominant. It doesn't care for other dogs. And it is afraid of people. And his owner paid $600 for this dog and has him with a spike collar and clipped his ears. He didn't even get him cut. Lance walks his dog to the same area and his dog bites someone.

Are you going to blame Gary and his sweet dog? Or are you going to blame lance for being part of the problem? This is the stupidity that is BSL. Stating that "one dog is more likely to bite" is silly. Any breed of dog can bite. They all pose risk of infection, and the problem has nothing to do with the dog itself. Certain dogs are more difficult to raise than others. I will give that. I own a pit and a chihuahua (sigh...) and both are sweet. But they are for experienced owners. And that is my point. Why should I as an experienced owner who has been taught dog handling from a Vet, be punished for the actions of someone who buys a dog to look like a bad ass and never trains it?
It's for the same reason firearms are regulated and peas-shooters are not, and wildcats are regulated but housecats are not.

The regs don't apply to specific individual animals, but to breeds, classes, and species that have the potential to cause serious harm. If one wants to venture into animal ownership that presents a higher possible danger of harm, one must accept a higher-level of scrutiny & precaution.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,489
Reaction score
21,443
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

BSLs are an emotional response to a legitimate issue on dog owner handling, that probably has a more complicated answer than what BSLs can possibly provide as we see them today. That and I am on the fence on BSLs actually keeping anyone safe.

But when you cut all of that away the primary idea is trying to remove a breed (or breeds) from the equation in a general sense because of the irresponsibility of the few owners. Not all pit bulls are a problem, but by ratio they can be a problem in the right conditions arguably more so than other breeds (or mixed breeds.) So instead of waiting until after the fact and prosecute someone for their irresponsible actions once something has happened we have convinced ourselves that outlawing the breed (or even similar looking to a breed, seriously that the BSL law in some conditions) is the answer. But then ignore that to a lesser degree in the right circumstances a Rottweiler, or Husky, or German Shepherd can be problematic. Stress on the word *can* as opposed to *always* or something like that.

Seems to be the more plausible answer is more harsh legal response to the actions of those who are irresponsible dog owners instead of targeting specific breeds (or likeness to them) in some hope that attacks go down.




BTW - The breeds came from the American Veterinary Medical Association off of a quick Google search on "dangerous breeds" but with thousands of results all with different "stats." And I'll add there is no real consensus on exactly the order of danger by breed other than pit bulls usually topping the list with no other context.
 

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,655
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

BSLs are an emotional response to a legitimate issue on dog owner handling, that probably has a more complicated answer than what BSLs can possibly provide as we see them today. That and I am on the fence on BSLs actually keeping anyone safe.

But when you cut all of that away the primary idea is trying to remove a breed (or breeds) from the equation in a general sense because of the irresponsibility of the few owners. Not all pit bulls are a problem, but by ratio they can be a problem in the right conditions arguably more so than other breeds (or mixed breeds.) So instead of waiting until after the fact and prosecute someone for their irresponsible actions once something has happened we have convinced ourselves that outlawing the breed (or even similar looking to a breed, seriously that the BSL law in some conditions) is the answer. But then ignore that to a lesser degree in the right circumstances a Rottweiler, or Husky, or German Shepherd can be problematic. Stress on the word *can* as opposed to *always* or something like that.

Seems to be the more plausible answer is more harsh legal response to the actions of those who are irresponsible dog owners instead of targeting specific breeds (or likeness to them) in some hope that attacks go down.




BTW - The breeds came from the American Veterinary Medical Association off of a quick Google search on "dangerous breeds" but with thousands of results all with different "stats." And I'll add there is no real consensus on exactly the order of danger by breed other than pit bulls usually topping the list with no other context.


Pit bulls top the list because people don't know what a pit bull is. Not to mention that pit bulls are cheaper than Rottweilers. That makes them perfect for low socioeconomic "guard dogs" that people train to be violent (people stressed).

Good post though. BSLs are written by emotionally driven people who no logic or experience to back their argument. A Dalmatian is a dangerous breed, that is why they are fire truck dogs. But you don't see them lister. I wonder why?

I would love to see extra prosecution or liability added to dog owners who have incidents rather than dog owners who work hard with their animals.
 

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,655
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

It's for the same reason firearms are regulated and peas-shooters are not, and wildcats are regulated but housecats are not.

The regs don't apply to specific individual animals, but to breeds, classes, and species that have the potential to cause serious harm. If one wants to venture into animal ownership that presents a higher possible danger of harm, one must accept a higher-level of scrutiny & precaution.

They discriminate against the owner who understands liability and takes his decision responsibly, and it is applied regardless of the logic that points to the law NOT being effective. It also does not target those who are responsible, and instead targets everyone.

In short...it is emotional crap written by a cat person (aka someone who doesn't know anything about dogs).
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,800
Reaction score
43,008
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

They discriminate against the owner who understands liability and takes his decision responsibly, and it is applied regardless of the logic that points to the law NOT being effective. It also does not target those who are responsible, and instead targets everyone.

In short...it is emotional crap written by a cat person (aka someone who doesn't know anything about dogs).
Maybe in your OP you should consider linking the regs you have an issue with, so we don't need to speak in suppositions and generalities?
 

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,655
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

Maybe in your OP you should consider linking the regs you have an issue with, so we don't need to speak in suppositions and generalities?

How about the idiocy that is the MIAMI-DADD BSL?

Man Suing Miami-Dade County Over BSL that Took Away His Service Dog

More demonstration that it is completely illogical to have them. Ignore that a trained dog is not the problem. Screw the owners. Just nanny government approach to a problem that is ultimately human created.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

I have noticed how common these BSLs are in my state. I also cannot comprehend how validly stupid these laws are. They do not reduce bites. They also do not recognize the reality of who is doing the biting and why.

Take for instance...a pit bull who is taken into a public atmosphere (say a park filled with people). This dog is well behaved and LOVES people. It doesn't have a problem with dogs either. It has been well trained. It never bites anyone. It was raised by Gary The Dog Whisperer.

Now take Lance The Problem owner. He owns a pit bull that is dominant. It doesn't care for other dogs. And it is afraid of people. And his owner paid $600 for this dog and has him with a spike collar and clipped his ears. He didn't even get him cut. Lance walks his dog to the same area and his dog bites someone.

Are you going to blame Gary and his sweet dog? Or are you going to blame lance for being part of the problem? This is the stupidity that is BSL. Stating that "one dog is more likely to bite" is silly. Any breed of dog can bite. They all pose risk of infection, and the problem has nothing to do with the dog itself. Certain dogs are more difficult to raise than others. I will give that. I own a pit and a chihuahua (sigh...) and both are sweet. But they are for experienced owners. And that is my point. Why should I as an experienced owner who has been taught dog handling from a Vet, be punished for the actions of someone who buys a dog to look like a bad ass and never trains it?
Didn't you start a thread about this a few months ago? What prompted this new thread?
 

soot

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
4,308
Reaction score
2,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

It's for the same reason firearms are regulated and peas-shooters are not...

With all due respect, that's a bad analogy.

Firearms don't have a mind of their own and there's absolutely no chance that a firearm might somehow find itself hurt, scared, and alone and lash out in defense of itself if it feels threatened.

I get what you're driving at, but to my mind large, powerful, potentially aggressive animal breeds should be more thoroughly regulated than firearms.

I believe that pit bulls (as well as rottweilers, presa canarios, cane corsos, mastiffs, dogo argentinos, fila brasieros, sharpeis, boxers, and their mixes) should be treated the same as lions and hippos.

If you want to keep one in your zoo feel free, but you've got no business taking one out in to the public.

These dog breeds combined account for 86% of attacks that induce bodily harm on humans so they just aren't safe.
 

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,655
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Didn't you start a thread about this a few months ago? What prompted this new thread?

Listening to some jack ass tell me how dangerous my "pit bull" was. Should have said, "the owner is more dangerous for people who don't keep their stupid opinions to themselves." But I don't think that would have been productive. I don't like stupid people with stupid opinions who have misbehaved dogs who tell me my dog is a problem (edited to reflect reality rather than my emotional reaction)
 
Last edited:

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,655
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

With all due respect, that's a bad analogy.

Firearms don't have a mind of their own and there's absolutely no chance that a firearm might somehow find itself hurt, scared, and alone and lash out in defense of itself if it feels threatened.

I get what you're driving at, but to my mind large, powerful, potentially aggressive animal breeds should be more thoroughly regulated than firearms.

I believe that pit bulls (as well as rottweilers, presa canarios, cane corsos, mastiffs, dogo argentinos, fila brasieros, sharpeis, boxers, and their mixes) should be treated the same as lions and hippos.

If you want to keep one in your zoo feel free, but you've got no business taking one out in to the public.

These dog breeds combined account for 86% of attacks that induce bodily harm on humans so they just aren't safe.

Which is complete nonsense. You must be afraid of dogs. Would that be an accurate assumption on my part?
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
73,656
Reaction score
56,988
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

i'm not for banning any particular breeds, but there are breeds that could kill my dog or future kid before i even had a chance to fight the thing off. and yes, they are bred to be aggressive and strong. i've seen some sweet pit bulls, but whenever i see something lunging at me when i'm taking a walk, it's nearly always one of the aggressive breeds. my toy fox terrier is no danger to anyone unless you're a cheese cube. a big mean dog is, and owners in general haven't been responsible enough keeping them under control to make legislation of some kind unnecessary. therefore, some degree of regulation is going to result.

another thing that's working against you is that while all owners of strong, aggressive breeds aren't irresponsible, tough guy assholes, the assholes tend to pick those breeds. that ****s it up for the whole class.
 

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,655
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

i'm not for banning any particular breeds, but there are breeds that could kill my dog or future kid before i even had a chance to fight the thing off. and yes, they are bred to be aggressive and strong. i've seen some sweet pit bulls, but whenever i see something lunging at me when i'm taking a walk, it's nearly always one of the aggressive breeds. my toy fox terrier is no danger to anyone unless you're a cheese cube. a big mean dog is, and owners in general haven't been responsible enough keeping them under control to make legislation of some kind unnecessary. therefore, some degree of regulation is going to result.

another thing that's working against you is that while all owners of strong, aggressive breeds aren't irresponsible, tough guy assholes, the assholes tend to pick those breeds. that ****s it up for the whole class.

Here is my thing: ANY large breed of dog could hurt you or your dog. I was at a local animal hospital when a hound dog killed a small terrier (one owner walking out as the other coming in). It all depends on the dog and the owner. This case? The one owner knew his dog was dog aggressive and mean. He didn't bother to take precautions and as a result someone else's dog died.

There is no singular "aggressive breed." Many large breeds are aggressive. I'm not 100% opposed to putting weight restrictions at places like apartments and so on, but breed restrictions to me signify a complete departure from any working knowledge of our canine friends.

As to the bottom? You are 100% correct. The assholes buy the big dogs and create asshole dogs. ANY breed of dog can be trained. It is a matter of effort. They aren't hippos or lions (as someone else stated). They have been genetically modified to the point that they understand humans without effort. They do so better than our closes genetic cousins (chimps).

If an owner cannot control their dog...that is on the owner. My dogs have NEVER bit anyone. One is a pit bull. And that is NORMAL for the breed as they have one of the greatest temperaments of any dog breed. They may not do so well with other dogs, but even that can be dealt with by proper training. They are not aggressive against people unless someone created that monster.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
73,656
Reaction score
56,988
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

Here is my thing: ANY large breed of dog could hurt you or your dog. I was at a local animal hospital when a hound dog killed a small terrier (one owner walking out as the other coming in). It all depends on the dog and the owner. This case? The one owner knew his dog was dog aggressive and mean. He didn't bother to take precautions and as a result someone else's dog died.

There is no singular "aggressive breed." Many large breeds are aggressive. I'm not 100% opposed to putting weight restrictions at places like apartments and so on, but breed restrictions to me signify a complete departure from any working knowledge of our canine friends.

there really are breeds that are a whole hell of a lot more likely to do damage. it's not just a coincidence. i don't care if people have those breeds, but keep them in the house or in the yard where they can't wreak havoc. i can barely take either of my dogs on a walk in my hometown because of roving wolves. and even the ones on leashes generally just about choke themselves to death trying to come after me or my dogs. dogs like that require a higher degree of responsibility. that means holding the owner responsible for the dog's actions and a higher degree of legislation to address breeds that could rip somebody's throat out.

As to the bottom? You are 100% correct. The assholes buy the big dogs and create asshole dogs. ANY breed of dog can be trained. It is a matter of effort. They aren't hippos or lions (as someone else stated). They have been genetically modified to the point that they understand humans without effort. They do so better than our closes genetic cousins (chimps).

If an owner cannot control their dog...that is on the owner. My dogs have NEVER bit anyone. One is a pit bull. And that is NORMAL for the breed as they have one of the greatest temperaments of any dog breed. They may not do so well with other dogs, but even that can be dealt with by proper training. They are not aggressive against people unless someone created that monster.

a lot of someones bred the dog to be that way naturally. not all of them are like that. sometimes nurture can overcome it, too. the fact is that not enough people are nurturing the dogs to solve the problem that way, so regulation is the natural response.

like i said, i don't want to take any of your dogs away. however, i'm fine with regulation that tells an owner that if your dog becomes dangerous, it's your ass. and you have to take the potential damage that could be caused into account when you're doing that. i can punch a beagle in the nose if i have to, but i'd need the jaws of life to get a motivated pit bull off of my dog's neck.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

I worked at a veterinary clinic for 8 years before I went into the Army. We had lots of pits come in. They were all as sweet as could be. Of course, the type of person who brings their pit bull to the vet is also usually the type of person who raises them responsibly.

I have bit scars all over me, however, from those damn dachshunds. But then a dachshund bite just needs a bandaid. A pit bite, when if it happens, needs an ambulance.

But yes, I am against breed specific bans.
 

SocialD

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
2,467
Reaction score
716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

BSLs are an emotional response to a legitimate issue on dog owner handling, that probably has a more complicated answer than what BSLs can possibly provide as we see them today. That and I am on the fence on BSLs actually keeping anyone safe.

But when you cut all of that away the primary idea is trying to remove a breed (or breeds) from the equation in a general sense because of the irresponsibility of the few owners. Not all pit bulls are a problem, but by ratio they can be a problem in the right conditions arguably more so than other breeds (or mixed breeds.) So instead of waiting until after the fact and prosecute someone for their irresponsible actions once something has happened we have convinced ourselves that outlawing the breed (or even similar looking to a breed, seriously that the BSL law in some conditions) is the answer. But then ignore that to a lesser degree in the right circumstances a Rottweiler, or Husky, or German Shepherd can be problematic. Stress on the word *can* as opposed to *always* or something like that.

Seems to be the more plausible answer is more harsh legal response to the actions of those who are irresponsible dog owners instead of targeting specific breeds (or likeness to them) in some hope that attacks go down.




BTW - The breeds came from the American Veterinary Medical Association off of a quick Google search on "dangerous breeds" but with thousands of results all with different "stats." And I'll add there is no real consensus on exactly the order of danger by breed other than pit bulls usually topping the list with no other context.


Good response and pretty much echoes how I feel about it.
Friend at work is a very involved dog guy and he pretty much has the view that the OP presented and we have discussed it several times.
Although I don't currently have any dogs myself there are about 8-10 dogs within 100 feet of my house belonging to other people and have I had it with a few bad owners.

I hate to just ban breeds as it is mostly bad owners that are the problem and chances are no matter what dog that person owns it will be a menace to one degree or another.
However, there are some dog breeds that do have a propensity to be aggressive and of course some breeds just have the physical ability to really do harm.
I would venture to say that some dog breeds require more focused training, socialization, perhaps a more alpha owner etc..

Legislation like this is just a easy out for a difficult issue. certainly not ideal and certainly not fair to all. the alternative of punishing bad owners is problematic though.. generally you are waiting until there is someone violently attacked before you can really do anything.
 

Bodhisattva

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
98,546
Reaction score
20,907
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

Listening to some jack ass tell me how dangerous my "pit bull" was. Should have said, "the owner is more dangerous for people who don't keep their stupid opinions to themselves." But I don't think that would have been productive. I don't like stupid people with stupid opinions who have misbehaved dogs who tell me my dog is a problem (edited to reflect reality rather than my emotional reaction)

I feel that a bad owner who's dog attacks/mauls a person should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder 2 charges if the dog does a lot of damage. That might get them to be more responsible if they see that type of sentencing handed down.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,800
Reaction score
43,008
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

How about the idiocy that is the MIAMI-DADD BSL?

Man Suing Miami-Dade County Over BSL that Took Away His Service Dog

More demonstration that it is completely illogical to have them. Ignore that a trained dog is not the problem. Screw the owners. Just nanny government approach to a problem that is ultimately human created.
The problem is the negligent owners, which is why for these breeds to coexist with the public there has to be some solution.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,800
Reaction score
43,008
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

i'm not for banning any particular breeds, but there are breeds that could kill my dog or future kid before i even had a chance to fight the thing off. and yes, they are bred to be aggressive and strong. i've seen some sweet pit bulls, but whenever i see something lunging at me when i'm taking a walk, it's nearly always one of the aggressive breeds. my toy fox terrier is no danger to anyone unless you're a cheese cube. a big mean dog is, and owners in general haven't been responsible enough keeping them under control to make legislation of some kind unnecessary. therefore, some degree of regulation is going to result.

another thing that's working against you is that while all owners of strong, aggressive breeds aren't irresponsible, tough guy assholes, the assholes tend to pick those breeds. that ****s it up for the whole class.
I very much agree with the bolded.

It was two dobies, the property of a macho tough-guy owner, that sent my 20 lb dog to the overnight E.R. for a lot of painful and expensive surgery.

I no longer feel the same about attack breeds. If anyone wants an animal that's capable of the carnage I saw in a matter of seconds, I say let them firstly prove they can safely introduce such an animal into public spaces, and they've worked for that privilege. I no longer buy into "these are good dogs, until proven otherwise". The "otherwise" is too late, and my dog has the scars and vet bills to prove it!

Besides my dog, there was a fatality the year before, and one not long after; along with two other severe but non-fatal attacks that I'm aware. All in 3 years, and all involving either dobbies or pits going after small dogs, all at the same small dog park in the city.

Needless to say, I no longer bring my two small dogs to *any* dog parks anymore.

And I no longer feel sanguinely or understandingly of the large aggressive breeds.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,800
Reaction score
43,008
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

Here is my thing: ANY large breed of dog could hurt you or your dog. I was at a local animal hospital when a hound dog killed a small terrier (one owner walking out as the other coming in). It all depends on the dog and the owner. This case? The one owner knew his dog was dog aggressive and mean. He didn't bother to take precautions and as a result someone else's dog died.

There is no singular "aggressive breed." Many large breeds are aggressive. I'm not 100% opposed to putting weight restrictions at places like apartments and so on, but breed restrictions to me signify a complete departure from any working knowledge of our canine friends.

As to the bottom? You are 100% correct. The assholes buy the big dogs and create asshole dogs. ANY breed of dog can be trained. It is a matter of effort. They aren't hippos or lions (as someone else stated). They have been genetically modified to the point that they understand humans without effort. They do so better than our closes genetic cousins (chimps).

If an owner cannot control their dog...that is on the owner. My dogs have NEVER bit anyone. One is a pit bull. And that is NORMAL for the breed as they have one of the greatest temperaments of any dog breed. They may not do so well with other dogs, but even that can be dealt with by proper training. They are not aggressive against people unless someone created that monster.
To bolded:

Yes, and the innocent citizen and/or their dog suffers?

We've heard you don't like these laws - fair enough. So what's your alternative solution, in lieu of these laws?
 

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,655
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

there really are breeds that are a whole hell of a lot more likely to do damage. it's not just a coincidence. i don't care if people have those breeds, but keep them in the house or in the yard where they can't wreak havoc. i can barely take either of my dogs on a walk in my hometown because of roving wolves. and even the ones on leashes generally just about choke themselves to death trying to come after me or my dogs. dogs like that require a higher degree of responsibility. that means holding the owner responsible for the dog's actions and a higher degree of legislation to address breeds that could rip somebody's throat out.



a lot of someones bred the dog to be that way naturally. not all of them are like that. sometimes nurture can overcome it, too. the fact is that not enough people are nurturing the dogs to solve the problem that way, so regulation is the natural response.

You keep coming back to this "regulation is a natural response" concept. How? It isn't natural when it obviously has no impact. Then you run into the crux of the issue: you can't legislate your problems away.

Your problem? You have a lot of bad owners (or perceived bad because allegedly aggressive dogs [not doubting, just stating that many people including dog owners do not understand play vs mean behavior]). They cause problems. Are you suggesting that they as American citizens should no longer be allowed to get the breed of dog they want? You see how these BSLs end up sounding when you step back from the emotional rhetoric.

Personally I'm fine with penalties On owners. I'm also ok with education programs and teaching people how to handle larger or more difficult breeds. Another thing that should change is holding property owners liable for bites because they allowed dogs. That is just one more frivolous lawsuit waiting to happen. If it all rests on the owner, why should a property owner pay more insurance for a problem they were not involved in?


like i said, i don't want to take any of your dogs away. however, i'm fine with regulation that tells an owner that if your dog becomes dangerous, it's your ass. and you have to take the potential damage that could be caused into account when you're doing that. i can punch a beagle in the nose if i have to, but i'd need the jaws of life to get a motivated pit bull off of my dog's neck.

You would need them for a well trained lab too. A biter is a biter and I've seen a full grown hound dog (not biters) gut a tiny dog in a split second. Dogs are strong animals. Regardless of breed. I agree. Hold the owner accountable.

Take the other day. We took our dogs to a park with kids. Had a mentally handicapped kid try to mess with my pit. I took her out of the situation, and called the inattentive mother over. I kept my dog on the far side of the park when this kid ran up to me and I was trying to socialize her to more children. Should I be held responsible if she bit him? Sure. But in this case who should have been watching their child in a dog friendly location?
 

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,655
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

To bolded:

Yes, and the innocent citizen and/or their dog suffers?

We've heard you don't like these laws - fair enough. So what's your alternative solution, in lieu of these laws?

Hold the owner accountable for the action of their animal. That is how our legal system works. If I stab you, my problem. You slip on my floor, my problem. I run you over? My problem. My toy rocket exploded After hitting your home? My problem. How should it be any different for my dog?

I would also add education as an option for new dog owners. I would also add more dog parks in urban areas. Proving dog friendly areas so I don't have to be around unfriendly anti dog people. The people I see get bit most often are the ones who know nothing about dogs. Amd the dogs I see doing the biting didn't have a good owner. Since BSLs don't work...you target improving owners.

You also put an extreme crack down on the dog fighting. And the only legislation I would support is guard dog training. But maybe not. Dalmatians being the reason.

If 45 million people can handle firearms responsibly, dogs should be a problem. F
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,800
Reaction score
43,008
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

Hold the owner accountable for the action of their animal. That is how our legal system works. If I stab you, my problem. You slip on my floor, my problem. I run you over? My problem. My toy rocket exploded After hitting your home? My problem. How should it be any different for my dog?

I would also add education as an option for new dog owners. I would also add more dog parks in urban areas. Proving dog friendly areas so I don't have to be around unfriendly anti dog people. The people I see get bit most often are the ones who know nothing about dogs. Amd the dogs I see doing the biting didn't have a good owner. Since BSLs don't work...you target improving owners.

You also put an extreme crack down on the dog fighting. And the only legislation I would support is guard dog training. But maybe not. Dalmatians being the reason.

If 45 million people can handle firearms responsibly, dogs should be a problem. F
No, not how are you going to clean-up the mess after it occurs, but how are you going to *prevent* it?

You may be fine with throwing someone cash after the fact, but the guy or dog that got messed-up would rather be alive or injury-free than re-compensated with money. This is the attitude that's likely causing the laws to be passed. Legal remedy is fine, but no one wants to receive injury firstly; and if that can't be addressed, knee-jerk blanket laws will be the result.

So to simply say "you'll get paid for your dead dog", isn't going to so easily do it for me and some others like me. Not when we have legislative options. (my real-life dog survived, however)

And yes, dangerous things (guns, knives, fireworks) are all highly regulated. If these dog owners don't police or regulate themselves, they'll end-up with the laws you dislike.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
73,656
Reaction score
56,988
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

I very much agree with the bolded.

It was two dobies, the property of a macho tough-guy owner, that sent my 20 lb dog to the overnight E.R. for a lot of painful and expensive surgery.

I no longer feel the same about attack breeds. If anyone wants an animal that's capable of the carnage I saw in a matter of seconds, I say let them firstly prove they can safely introduce such an animal into public spaces, and they've worked for that privilege. I no longer buy into "these are good dogs, until proven otherwise". The "otherwise" is too late, and my dog has the scars and vet bills to prove it!

Besides my dog, there was a fatality the year before, and one not long after; along with two other severe but non-fatal attacks that I'm aware. All in 3 years, and all involving either dobbies or pits going after small dogs, all at the same small dog park in the city.

Needless to say, I no longer bring my two small dogs to *any* dog parks anymore.

And I no longer feel sanguinely or understandingly of the large aggressive breeds.

my dogs go to our complex's dog park only when there are no big, potentially aggressive dogs there. they might be the biggest sweethearts in the world, and i consider that a possibility. however, when i see an aggressive breed, danger is my first instinct, and i listen to that.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
73,656
Reaction score
56,988
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

You keep coming back to this "regulation is a natural response" concept. How? It isn't natural when it obviously has no impact. Then you run into the crux of the issue: you can't legislate your problems away.

Your problem? You have a lot of bad owners (or perceived bad because allegedly aggressive dogs [not doubting, just stating that many people including dog owners do not understand play vs mean behavior]). They cause problems. Are you suggesting that they as American citizens should no longer be allowed to get the breed of dog they want? You see how these BSLs end up sounding when you step back from the emotional rhetoric.

Personally I'm fine with penalties On owners. I'm also ok with education programs and teaching people how to handle larger or more difficult breeds. Another thing that should change is holding property owners liable for bites because they allowed dogs. That is just one more frivolous lawsuit waiting to happen. If it all rests on the owner, why should a property owner pay more insurance for a problem they were not involved in?




You would need them for a well trained lab too. A biter is a biter and I've seen a full grown hound dog (not biters) gut a tiny dog in a split second. Dogs are strong animals. Regardless of breed. I agree. Hold the owner accountable.

Take the other day. We took our dogs to a park with kids. Had a mentally handicapped kid try to mess with my pit. I took her out of the situation, and called the inattentive mother over. I kept my dog on the far side of the park when this kid ran up to me and I was trying to socialize her to more children. Should I be held responsible if she bit him? Sure. But in this case who should have been watching their child in a dog friendly location?

i'm sure that your pit bull is fine, and that's where you're going wrong with this. i'm not sure where we're disagreeing, unless you're arguing that the breed hasn't been bred to be something resembling a weapon, that many people who own them are idiots, and that this has made some regulations a necessity. you're obviously not an idiot, so i'm sorry that you have to suffer for those who are. if they put forward a ballot initiative to ban the breed, i'd vote no.
 
Top Bottom