Pittbulls

[Justin]

Originally Posted by GuineaAddict

I swear...duct tape next time.

In 200x, a 4th grader girl in South Korea posted a request on local police station's forum. (Yes, Korean police stations have their own web forums and try to maintain popularity)

"Dear policeman, there is a short-leashed barking dog in the way we go to school. We are scared. Please help."

About a week later, the chief officer replied.

"Dear child, don't worry. I convinced the dog owner to sell it to a dog meat dealer. You won't see the dog again. Please study hard and be a good citizen."

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Jennicat

Punish the Deed, not the Breed!

I like the slogan! Pits did nothing wrong and shouldn't be punished.

Pits, along with many completely different but just pit-looking breeds, are innocently sacrificed for public necessity, not being punished.

What's more important? Public Safety or Pits(and many other innocent breeds)' Right?

[originalhandy]

The public can be in danger from absolutely anything they do. Nothing you have said in these threads make any sence to me justin. Lets add padded wallpaper to rooms so people can fall safely too.

[GuineaAddict]

Originally Posted by originalhandy

The public can be in danger from absolutely anything they do. Nothing you have said in these threads make any sence to me justin. Lets add padded wallpaper to rooms so people can fall safely too.

I like that idea...sounds fun. But I tend to have that same attitude. My grandmother frets over me being a pizza delivery person because she's afraid I'll get robbed or killed. But the fact is I'm just as likely to get killed in a car accident (about did today) or get knifed walking down the sidewalk. Yes, delivering pizza can increase the risks of getting robbed and killed...but the way I see it...I like the job and if somethings going to happen to me...it's going to happen one way or the other. If I went around guessing and staying away from what I thought would harm me, I'd never get out of bed.

[Guinea Lover 27]

Well - you can stay in bed - but then you have to worry about rolling over and suffocating in your own pillow - or the sheets actually bonding to your flesh and them needing to be surgically removed which would lead to a deadly flesh eating disease - or of course a simple home evasion where you are killed for refusing to leave your bed - and then if all of those things don't happen - a natural disaster will occur and kill you - and finally a plane will crash into your house - directly over your bed and in one giant explosion - you're dead.

So technically - if you are alive - there is a pretty darn good chance that you are going to die.

[GuineaAddict]

Originally Posted by Guinea Lover 27

So technically - if you are alive - there is a pretty darn good chance that you are going to die.

My grandma told me one day "with the second breath we take we begin dying" and I beg to differ. With the very first breath you bring life into your lungs but also allow the death to being to seap in you cannot live without dying.

[i-love-nev]

Originally Posted by originalhandy

The public can be in danger from absolutely anything they do.

Exactly.

My problem with BSL is that because a few have attacked people they are all going to die. Does that mean because some humans murder, rape, rob etc we should kill all humans/make having kids illegal?

[Justin]

Originally Posted by i-love-nev

Does that mean because some humans murder, rape, rob etc we should kill all humans/make having kids illegal?

You mean specific groups of human, instead of all human, right?

Some people say no. They value human more than dogs, regardless of individual relationship with them or potentially harmful human genes.
Some people say yes. They value dogs equally as human.

[crazywiggy]

I think I must be "whispering" my posts too quietly for people to hear....

We are STILL missing the point!

I like the slogan! Pits did nothing wrong and shouldn't be punished.

Pits, along with many completely different but just pit-looking breeds, are innocently sacrificed for public necessity, not being punished.

What's more important? Public Safety or Pits(and many other innocent breeds)' Right?

Again - this post makes no sense!

Pits (and other breeds) are NOT being sacrificed as a "public necessity".
They, even the innocent and safe ones, are being ERADICATED (i.e. KILLED) in order to placate the ignorant.

What is more important - public safety or pits?

Try that again.... what is more important, public safety or one individual dangerous dog?
Personally, I feel public safety. I have no problem with dangerous dogs being euthanised. I have said this before.

But it is NOT simply a choice between public safety or pit bulls.
Why?
Because...
1) we can improve public safety without eradicating pit bulls.
2) we can still have public safety issues without pit bulls.

Banning pit bulls will not improve public safety. Pits are not the only breed capable of killing a person. You want to prevent all dog bites permanently? Ban dogs. ALL dogs. Pet dogs, herding dogs, police dogs, sniffer dogs, therapy and assistance dogs etc.

Or we could ban the breeds known to bite and/or kill.... pits, rotts, akitas, huskies, poodles, labradors, golden retrievers, collies, spaniels, terriers, dachshunds, poms,.... oh yeah, that would be virtually all of them then!

Seriously - if anyone can give me evidence that pit bulls attack because it is "in their nature" rather than nurture or circumstance, I would be interested.
If you can prove to me that pit bulls are more likely to "turn nasty" than any other breed, despite proper breeding, upbringing, care, socialisation, training, neutering, and good health then go ahead.

I may be an animal welfarist, and a dog lover, but I am not without care for my fellow man. If I thought BSL might actually help, I might not be against it. But it won't. And the recent fatalities here in the UK prove that to me.

[originalhandy]

Exactly, banning the APBT, Staff, AmStaff and anything that remotely resembles it will not improve public safety. If there is a specific case where a "Pitbull" is dangerous, go ahead and put it down. I value human life over a dogs or any animals any day of the week.

I had a Black Lab / Golden Retriever mix, the ultimate family dog, right ? Wrong. Couldnt be farther from the truth. He was extremely agressive when kids came into the yard, and I mean extremely. We had a friend help us move with his kids and my dog charged and jumped for his face, the dog was brutal and wanted to get to teh child. Now when I saw this I tried and tried to work with him to no avail. I had to put him down for the safety of others. I didnt call the media, I didnt try to ban Labs or Retrievers or anyt of the said mixes, I put him down because it was the only thing to do. If only people applied that rational to all dogs.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by crazywiggy

Pits (and other breeds) are NOT being sacrificed as a "public necessity".
They, even the innocent and safe ones, are being ERADICATED (i.e. KILLED) in order to placate the ignorant.

sacrificed = eradicated or killed or not bred
public necessity = placate the ignorant and safety

I have no problem with dangerous dogs being euthanised. I have said this before.

But you do have problem when large number of innocent dogs are removed together due to our inability to pick out only dangerous ones?

1) we can improve public safety without eradicating pit bulls.

If we do that, and also eradicate pit bulls, could it be even safer?

2) we can still have public safety issues without pit bulls.

We will have one less issues.

Or we could ban the breeds known to bite and/or kill....

How about benefit/cost evaluation on each breed? I am sure there are many breeds with positive scores.

Originally Posted by originalhandy

If only people applied that rational to all dogs.

That's a BIG "If."

[cowgirl411]

Originally Posted by mbator

I don't like them, they are unpreditable like rottweilers and I would never suggest having one with young children. I suppose they are great for protecting property, but not to be used as a family pet. I know of people who have had serious mishaps from these type of animals.

Not to be rude but it is NOT the dog it is the owner.

[Ziggy&Herald]

I have Rottweilers and a Pitt. They both are excellent with my children. If you have a dog, any dog, it has to be taught how to interact with children. As long as they are trained in an appropriate way, and the owners still understand the breed of dog they own, they can be wonderful family pets.

It still goes back to the owners responsibility. Why can people not see that? Is it because they don't wan to take the blame for an untrained dog?

Why do we just put down a dog who has attacked someone. Why not put the owner in jail as well instead of giving that person a slap on the wrist with a fine and allow them to go and own another dog that will repeat the same actions because the owner is still an idiot that knows nothing on how to properly train his dogs?

[crazywiggy]

sacrificed = eradicated or killed or not bredpublic necessity = placate the ignorant and safety

Yes, the first definition could be implemented, and would of course be preferable to simply killing existing dogs.

The second definition is a matter of opinion. You believe certain breeds of dogs are a safety concern. I believe certain individual dogs are a safety concern.
However, what we do know for certain is that governments decide their policies in order to win votes. They would not care if we had all the concrete evidence in the world - if "Jo Public" who know absolutely nothing about dogs, wanted pits banned, the gov would do it to win their votes.

But you do have problem when large number of innocent dogs are removed together due to our inability to pick out only dangerous ones?

Yes. I also have a problem with wasting time, money and resources bringing in legislation that WILL NOT WORK!

If we do that, and also eradicate pit bulls, could it be even safer?

No. Because ANY dog can bite. ANY dog can kill. And ANY dog can be a fantastic and safe family pet.

We will have one less issues.

No. Because PEOPLE will still create individually dangerous dogs, so people will continue to be bitten and killed - just by other breeds.

I don't see why we can't consider the other things dangerous dogs often have in common rather than breed alone. We could bring in legislation based on these things and actually reduce dog attacks. Not only that but such laws would also be a gerat leap forward for animal welfare at the same time. And by limiting ownership to responsible people you would also reduce problems such as fouling and straying. Some well thought out legislation would be more effective for the purpose, and have so many other benefits too. Surely this is therefore the logical and compassionate way to go?

For those that still believe genetics has a big part to play in aggression why not legislate breeding?
Legislate the breeders to ensure high standards of care for the dogs and puppies (vital for good early development).
Legislate the dogs themselves. The American Temperament Test and KC Canine Good Citizens Award Scheme both give good indicators of temperament - for example, behaving around other dogs and people, coping with unusual and potentially scary situations, being handled and touched all over etc. If we made it mandatory that only temperament tested dogs could be bred from, we could eradicate any dogs that are "naturally" aggressive - from EVERY breed. Same for health/mental problems such as "rage syndrome". Stop people breeding from dogs with rage in their bloodlines, and it will cease to exist.

And then there are all the other factors affecting aggression...

Many dog bites are caused by entire dogs - make it mandatory that every dog that is not certified as safe to breed is neutered, and reduce those attacks.

Many biters are undersocialised. Many are untrained. Many have been abused or spoiled (both equally dangerous and stupid things to do). So legislate the breeders and owners. Make approved training classes mandatory. Make people learn then pass a test to prove they understand the importance of socialisation and training and how to do it. Prevent the completely ignorant, the criminals, etc from owning dogs and watch dog bites plummet.

What would bringing in this type of legislation achieve?

1) A significant reduction in dog attacks. Only temperament tested dogs would be bred by responsible, knowledgable breeders. Pups would be properly raised in the correct environment. Dogs would be owned by knowledgable, responsible people. They would be well socialised and trained, and neutered.

2) A significant reduction in other anti-social dog problems. Responsible owners do not let their dogs roam the neighborhood. Responsible owners do not let their dogs drive the neighbours mad with their barking. Responsible owners scoop the poop. Responsible owners do not treat dogs as weapons and use them to intimidate people.

3) A massive improvement in animal welfare.
By legislating the breeders and the "breeding dogs" we would significantly reduce the number of dogs being born - eradicating puppy farms and BYBs, not to mention most impulse buys. Less dogs born means less dogs dumped on the streets, surrendered to rescues and destroyed. We could solve the problem of overpopulation.
By including health testing in this legislation you would not only reduce the chances of dogs biting because they are in pain, but could prevent the immense suffering (pain, disability, early death etc) of hereditary diseases.
By enforcing high standards of care you would improve the welfare of millions of dogs, and prevent most cases of outright abuse or neglect. It would also help to eradicate dog fighting.
By enforcing proper socialisation and training we would have less dogs living in fear of scary situations (being left alone, fireworks, strangers, etc). Less dogs being repeatedly chastised and punished for wrong doing because they don't know any better. Less dogs being bored stiff because they have no mental stimulation in their lives - training (humane) is GOOD for dogs.

We could accomplish all this and probably more - without demonising any innocent breed, or punishing any innocent dog or owner.

I do not understand why anyone would choose ineffective BSL over the more sensible, humane, effective, and far-reaching alternative.

Ziggy

Why do we just put down a dog who has attacked someone. Why not put the owner in jail as well instead of giving that person a slap on the wrist with a fine and allow them to go and own another dog that will repeat the same actions because the owner is still an idiot that knows nothing on how to properly train his dogs?

I completely agree. I believe the penalties for being responsible for a dog bite should be much higher. Responsible owners generally do not have aggressive dogs because they treat them right. Responsible people that take on rescue dogs with aggression problems work through these problems in an appropriate manner and take necessary precautions such as muzzling.