Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner action

[Chomsky]

Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

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.

In response to what's going on at my city park, some women have taken to bringing their mace & pepper spray with them, and even as a guy I think it's a good idea.

But the way the laws currently are in my city, no actions are taken until physical damage (verifiable to the police) occurs. Aggressive behavior alone is not technically enough to have the dog legally leave the park, unless damage occurs. Consequently, some with large aggressive breeds seem overjoyed in chasing those with smaller dogs out of the park. Unfortunately, in a small but busy urban dog-park there's virtually no time when there isn't a large aggressive breed present.

 

[nota bene]

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).

I am, in my heart, totally a cat-person...but once I moved to the country, I became a very grateful and appreciative dog owner. I do own a doggie who is half-pit, and one of my kids has owned full-blooded pits. I've also owned a rescue doggie, an Aussie who was cruelly used to train pit bulls. So although I'm no dog expert, I do have fairly significant experience with pits.

And I've heard it all--how it's all about how the dog is trained and treated and blah-blah-blah. I understand the responsibility; I've also owned an Akita who had to be put down when it became aggressive for no reason. And a doggie who was part Rottweiler and part Great Dane. And I could tell you a horror story or two about Rhodesian ridgebacks.

What I mean is don't kid a kidder. There are some breeds over which you need to be super-scrupulous. There is a reason in my community why some landlords won't rent to pit bull owners. I guess my lean is toward any dog owner/any breed being responsible under the law for his or her animal, period.

Yes, there is prejudice against pits. Some of it is deserved, to which anybody honest will testify who's seen one "lock."

 

[soot]

Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

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

I've had dogs all my life.

I currently have a Shepherd crossbreed.

I've been bitten by dogs a number of times (including being bitten pretty good by a Rotty) and that hasn't diminished my love for the animal nor has it put me off having dogs that are big enough to do serious damage.

Again, my opposition to Molosser breeds is a result of the danger they pose to society.

Am I afraid of dogs in general?

No, not at all.

Am I afraid of pit bulls that I don't know and am not familiar with?

You'd have to be a retard, and I mean that literally, you'd have to be mentally retarded not to be.

Pit bulls are responsible for over 100 attacks which cause bodily harm to humans every year including about 65 attacks which result in maiming and 10 which result in death (40% of all dog attack fatalities in any given year despite being only 6.5% of the U.S. dog population).

Look, I get that you love your dogs and you love a particular breed, I do too (Shepherds, which are only involved in 1.4 bodily harm attacks per year including 0.9 maiming attacks and 0.2 fatalities).

It just, unfortunately, happens that the breed you love is a dangerous pest animal that should be eradicated.

I understand that you disagree with me and that you think I'm infringing on your Constitutional right to own a Rhinoceros but I don't really care.

The sooner we get these dogs out of people's hands the better.

 

[Thorgasm]

Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

BSL is ignorant bigotry spread to dogs. It is born out of fear and lack of knowledge about dog behavior.

 

[CLAX1911]

Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

There are breeds of dogs that have a tendency for aggression. Pitbull terriers were bread for bear baiting. Hence their stalky build and tendency to not let go of something once it has grabbed hold of it.

However, standard poodles can be very aggressive. To this date that and a great Dane were the only two dogs that have ever bit me.

The law should be simple the owner is responsible. If you raise a pit bull it's you're responsibility. If your lovable poodle bites a neighbor you are responsible. That's it.

 

[Mason66]

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.

Is Chihuahua on that dangerous breed list? If not it should be.

 

[Mason66]

Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

There are breeds of dogs that have a tendency for aggression. Pitbull terriers were bread for bear baiting. Hence their stalky build and tendency to not let go of something once it has grabbed hold of it.

However, standard poodles can be very aggressive. To this date that and a great Dane were the only two dogs that have ever bit me.

The law should be simple the owner is responsible. If you raise a pit bull it's you're responsibility. If your lovable poodle bites a neighbor you are responsible. That's it.

Why isn't it like that.

That wold only be common sense.

 

[CLAX1911]

Re: Breed Specific Legislation: Harming Responsible owners for irresponsible Owner ac

Why isn't it like that.

That wold only be common sense.

I believe it is in a lot of places.

where it isn't a bit bull or mastiff killed somebody or hurt somebody and all of the sudden people demand their government protect them from themselves.