This is from the AKC website.....Better be careful wishing BSL upon people looks like your breed of dog is right there with mine...UT OH! BSL may not be in the state or city you live in now but it's only a matter of time before it is.
Sen. Sue Wilson Beffort last week introduced the "Pit Bull Breeding Ban Act" (S188). Provisions of the bill will place severe restrictions on ownership and acquisition of a "pit bull" (defined as a Pit Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, or dog identifiable as or known as a pit bull. Owners of these dogs must not: Acquire a pit bull after July 1, 2005 Breed a pit bull either privately or commercially Keep existing pit bulls unless they are Spayed or neutered Licensed at a cost of $250 per year Kept indoors or outside in a six-foot-tall iron or steel pen with roof Chained and muzzled when off the owner's property Covered by a $100,000 liability insurance policy or surety bond Pit bull owners will face $1000 fine if their dog is found at large. In addition, the bill automatically declares the following breeds "dangerous" and subjects them to additional fines and restrictions: Akita, Alaskan Malamute, American or "Old Country" Bull Dog, Boxer, Presa Canario, Chow Chow, Doberman Pinscher, German Shepherd, Great Dane, Rottweiler, Siberian Husky and wolf-hybrids. Finally, S188 would impose new fines on owners of any dogs that bite.
***Edited By: GinaH on 8/29/2005 1:32:02 PM*** Reason: ***
That is going to solve the dog biting problem seeing how Pomeranians and Labs are more likely to bite than Pits if raised right. This is stupid. BEWARE YOUR BREED IS NEXT. If they take away the pits they will just move on to another breed or even worse-START A NEW MORE VISCOUS AND DANGEROUS BREED!
Consequence and speculation on the impacts of breed ban -------------------------------------------------------------- The Implementation and enforcement of breed bans is costly and difficult. In Cincinnati, Ohio, during a ten-year period, the police department spent over $160,000 per year trying to enforce their Pit Bull ban. Among the many seized dogs were Boxers and Golden Retrievers. Many Animal Control officials cannot accurately identify the 800+ dog breeds in the world, let alone the 157 breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club. There is no legally proven method of distinguishing a dog with recent wolf ancestry from another type of dog so how does a community ascertain one breed from another that is proscribed?
Banning a breed will include the mixes thereof, who is going to be able to determine what a particular mix dog has in its genetic makeup? In cases where there are disputes as to a mixed dog parentage, expert testimony will be necessary. Courts place the burden of proving that a dog is of the proscribed breed on the enforcing agency. In the meantime, said dog will have to be housed, fed and treated in a humane manner for a period no less that it takes for the courts to process the challenge on the animal seized.
Bans do not stop the bad owners from taking any breed and make it aggressive. All dogs can and will bite, they all will protect their home and owners. Any dog can be taught to attack.
Local shelters and rescues will be deluged with surrendered animals; the irresponsible owner will simply turn his animal loose for others to deal with. As proof, look at the appalling number of pit bulls ending their life in shelters and pounds all over North America, despite the fact the American Temperament Testing Association established once and for all that the breed displays no more aggression toward humans than the golden retriever of the beagle.
The very people one wishes to live within their area will be gone... Those owners that participate in search and rescue, pet therapy programs, and are law-abiding citizens, the breeders who carefully and ethically breed for stable wonderful canines will leave when faced with losing their loved companions. In Germany, where breed bans have been legislated in some regions, dogs have been allowed under a grandfather clause. The proscribed dogs have been the victims of beatings, stabbing and even death while helpless owners attempted to simply walk their friends in public according to the law. Is this where you want to live?
The irresponsible dog owner will likely let their dogs lose rather than pay to have them placed under special licenses or make modifications to their properties to comply with new regulations as with breed specific legislation i.e. higher fences, increased insurance coverage.
As all the above mentioned authoritative organizations that have studied the data available on dog related injuries state in their conclusions, through education of the public as to dog safety and responsible ownership the rates of injuries will decrease. Non breed specific legislation utilizing the term "Dangerous dog" should be based on a particular dog's behavior and not its breed. The American Kennel Club as well as The Canadian Kennel Club have excellent examples of this type of legislation and are more than ready to assist any township requesting assistance with animal control issues.
Thanks, Gina. Actually, I think Alicat is right on with her belief about why we hear so much negativity. It shows that she does actually think and reason, unlike some who are extremely closed-minded and prejudiced against a breed, like Foosdog. It is what Ali wrote earlier that makes me think so. More of the general public have pitbulls for the WRONG reasons than the right ones. Dog dummies who have no experience with dogs want them for home protection, personal protection, guarding DRUGS...I have personally witnessed, and illegal dog fighting. These people pick up a cheap pup, and often give it very little socialization, leave it tied in the back yard, or 'train them to fight'. The dogs are then not properly contained because the people are again, stupid, and then their pit bull type breed dog goes off and maims or kills a child.
I don't know if I'd say MORE of the general public, but other than that , I agree completely with Alicat's above statement. There are a lot of jerks out there.
Where I disagree is her proposed solution to the problem.. If the jerks are the problem, PROSECUTE the jerks! Harshly! Punishing responsible owners and innocent dogs does not solve the problem. Does anyone think that the jerks would not neglect the next dog they get and would suddenly become a responsible owner? Really? Drug dealers and the like already do not obey the law. Are we naive enough to think they would run out and get rid of their ill tempered pit bull? Or REGISTER it or pay a higher homeowner's insurance because of it??? No. It would be people like me and GinaH and Ivy and Red that would be following all the red tape. (only we would move before we would re-home our dogs, or at least I would.)
Alicat, I think you have the right idea but the wrong solution. I suggest you lobby for more stringent dog laws, including leash laws (applying to all breeds) and harsher punishment for animal abuse/neglect. With BSL, even if the criminals did run right out and get rid of their pits, the law wouldn't protect you from the next dog they get and abuse.
***Edited By: shinyblackpit on 8/29/2005 2:34:34 PM*** Reason: asdfasdfsadf
BSL here starts here today, though there is a transition period until the end of October. People's boxer crosses have been labelled potential pits and are having to follow the same bsl regs.
But on top of it any dog owner here can be screwed over now. If your neighbour reports you as having a vicious dog, pit, cocker, chi, whatever, they can come into your house, seize your dog and destroy it. Won't matter if your dog bit someone or the neighbour just plain hates you.
Actually, I'm scared. I'm putting that out in the air, I'm scared to death. I don't want to ever own any dog that looks like a pit bull again because of BSL. I am so afraid that one day they will take Shadow. Heck, before we all know it BSL is going to affect all dogs. Any dog that looks menacing will be seized, any dog that is strong will be seized, why? Because some humans are plain stupid. They don't care if anything or anyone gets hurt as long as they are a different species, and farther more, anything that even looks dangerous will someday probably be banned. It is like someone looking at me wearing all black, dying my hair red, being really pale, and not being able to take it off and saying "Oh my gosh, she looks dangerous! We'd better kill her, she might attack someone, afterall, in the media most people that kill other people are dressed in black!"
So thank you very much alicat. It means A LOT to know you don't care if my dog dies as long as children don't get hurt in the process.
***Edited By: ShadowDog on 8/29/2005 2:52:48 PM*** Reason: add
I live in the corner of a busy road and a state highway. I have 4 acres, mostly field fenced and electric on the inside, or privacy fence. If my dogs get out they are dead from the road before I would know they were out. I have 16 dogs in full view of the public except when the are in my house in due to weather conditions and at night.
People stop and look at my dogs, call to them, they stop at my house and ask to pet them nearly every week. I have the full support of the community. No one has ever ever complained about my dogs and if I had to I would do what ever requirements are necessary, I will most likely have to with the PAWS law which I am actually more concerned about right now. That is because AKC will notify the USDA when you hit a certian number.
I live in the country, my dogs are not even licensed!!!!!!AND everyone KNOWS I have them. That was kind of my point is move to the da@med county, why do pit bulls need to be chained in the getto and roaming the hood???I didn't say that NO ONE should be allowed to have them. That was not my point at all.
I know my dogs would never ever bite, except possibly if my familiy was being harmed and that is why I chose this breed.
I am just as confident in my dogs as you are with yours. The neighbors are familiar with them, many calling them by name, because of everyday walks around the block. Plus we have lots of neighborhood children over to play with my kids. If the dog is in another room, the kids want to know where he is. They like to throw the ball for fetch. I also have never once had a complaint from a neighbor. Many of our neighbors are from an older generation, when pit bulls were a popular and very well thought of family pet. Some share stories with me about the pit they grew up with or the one their grandmother had. We stop in to talk with them on walks and they have treats ready, have actually come to expect us. They are so friendly with people that the cable guy and the electrician are greeted with a tail wag from the couch. (Some guard dog, eh? LOL)
I wholeheartedly agree that they (as well as any dog) should not be chained up outside and neglected.
If you don't believe that my dogs and other responsible owner's dogs should be taken away, and I am happy to hear that you don't, then BSL is not the way to go. In Denver, they are forcibly taking pets, happy, healthy, friendly indoor pets, from people like me and euthanizing them. These are not pets who have ever bitten or attacked. The situation is horrific! It is my earlier suggestion that will benefit you and your community the most.
Thank you for reading. I know there is a lot of BS out there, but realize it doesn't apply to all of us or our dogs.
***Edited By: shinyblackpit on 8/29/2005 10:51:53 PM*** Reason: sdafsadf
Again in the post in question my point was there are to many irresponsible PEOPLE that own pit types and neglect them and don't socialize them, and then allow them to go hurt and maim others. Not blaming the dogs nor responsible owners, but there is something that needs to be done and I do agree with SOME of the legislation.
If they can track down the owners of offending dogs I think they should be fined $1000 and actually put in jail! I think that in poor urban areas where crime and drugs are a problem, there is also a problem with roaming pits, and they should have heavy restrictions in those areas as to who can or cannot have them. It would honestly be better for pits everywhere, because eventually they would lose their reputation if people handled them RESPONSIBLY.
I feel the same way about my dogs as you do "I know they would never bite or harm anyone" In fact one of my Pit Bulls has her CGC certificate and visits the hospice twice monthly.
My neighbors know I own Pit Bulls and are all comfortable with my dogs and in fact are in full support of my dogs and my efforts to fight BSL.
Why should I have to live in the country just because I own a Pit Bull? Where I live in Southern Illinois some of the more rural areas (country) are more likely to have BSL in affect than the bigger cities. Mostly beacause it's easier to pass the laws in small towns where there's not a whole lot of people to fight them.
I don't agree with dogs being chained or allowed to roam free either I think it's irresponsible and just downright stupid! BUT I do not think that BSL should be passed because of a select few irresponsible owners.
***Edited By: GinaH on 8/29/2005 11:26:36 PM*** Reason: ***
Stricter animal control, AC picking up roaming dogs, and high penalties for offenders, even more patrolled in problem areas, such as poor urban areas or any other in which there is an abundance of dogs running loose. I like that very much. Breed need not have anything to do with it. This would also take less AC workers and less of our tax dollars than would wasting their time confiscating my friendly pit from my home.
***Edited By: shinyblackpit on 8/29/2005 11:31:44 PM*** Reason: asdfasdfsadf
It is really, really bad when that is done to any dog, but there are only a few breeds that will turn ultra agressive, break free and maim people. Pits are not alone there are a few dozen breeds you are risking the lives of others treating them that way... not every breed though, not maltese per se. Other breeds may become shy, feral (sp) and not like people, but will they hunt people down and attack unprovoked... not likely. That is the main difference. I mean...it's not a 'popular position' but a large portion of the public agree with me.
Also say what you will, but I have personally had to investigate families where their have been children REPEATEDLY bitten by the family dogs, and in some of those cases I hauled the parents a*ses in to court because they were to stupid to have dogs and children and really shouldn't have either.
I have personally seen the difference in a pit bite and cocker bites. I do know what my experiences are and they of a different perspective, but please don't act like I just don't know how wonderful pits are. Sigfried and Roy thought all their lions and tigers were great until montecore.
I have been bitten by a cocker, and needed stitches for that. I have never been bitten by a pit bull, though. I have ment more nasty cockers than pit bulls. One that attacked even Shadow, who refused to fight back.
My dog is fine with kids, cats, dogs, fish. Anything, and I trust her, though I wouldn't leave ANY dog home alone with a little kid.
Lions and tigers are wild animals. Pit bulls are beloved pets.
I think the ban/ law/ rules/ fees/ ,Ins, for responsible people who own these so called " type of dogs" is offensive. HOWEVER, there has to be something done so these dumb loser dog owners can't own a dog that could do severe damage if it bites. Some people just don't think when it comes to the responsibilty of dog ownership ( that goes for all breeds) but the ones that can really do damage to other pets and people can be very threating and scarey. This might be a dumb idea, but wouldn't there be a way that people that own pits etc. with no problems or violations could be so called " grandfathered in" so the stiff laws wouldn't affect them, but the new people ( every Tom, Dick and Harry, that wants a guard dog but has no idea how to train , raise. or house them) would now have to follow certain rules, get homeowners INS, pay big fines if the dog does attack etc? Mabey it would make people stop and think if they want the resposibilty and costs that goes along with owning a so called guard dog of any breed. I really don't know what the answer is, but it sure must be scarey to the repsonsible owners of these breeds to be subjected to all the very stiff rules and costs.
Why is msg. 17 not a better solution than to ban a certain breed, even if only in a certain area? This isn't a rhetorical question, I REALLY want to know why it's BETTER to take only some roaming dogs off the street and not others.
It would be easier and cheaper to enforce, and would solve the problem of pits roaming and also of other breeds (which also can and do bite, especially if abused) that may be roaming free. If the owners are not located or do not come to pick up their dog, the dog is PTS after a certain number of days. Problem alleviated.
Roaming dogs biting people is the problem, correct? It is still a problem if a mixed breed or any breed is running around, getting worms and diseases, maybe causing wrecks, and biting people, right? Even Maltese shouldn't be running at large, to be hit by a car, starve, become matted and maggot infested, or fall into the hands of a mean person. So what logical reason is there to choose a law that singles out breeds rather than one that solves the problem at hand?
OR one could go with my suggestion in addition to a breed ban. Get the logic of that one... "Well, we will take the roaming dogs to the pound... and let's pick up any well behaved house pets in the area, too, while we're at it, as long as they're pit bulls or something that looks similar!" They could be spending the time and effort that they would use to confiscate people's well mannered housepets to investigate and prosecute animal cruelty cases.
***Edited By: shinyblackpit on 8/30/2005 12:35:51 PM*** Reason: asdfsadfasdf
Isn't that what HAS been in place for YEARS with animal control, and isn't working? All breeds of dogs are caught and taken off the street and put in the pound every day in every major city that I know of, still not working. If you are irresponsible enough to let your dog roam and harm people, do you think they are going to claim them afterwards to get fines and punishment? You do get tickets and fines if your dog bites people (any dog). It is hard to get homeowners insurance at all for certian breeds, let alone mandating it. How would that happen when private insurance companies don't want to have the LIABILITY of insuring certian breeds at all?
I guess I will continue to agree to disagree, but I do know to not even read thread mentioning pit breeds, it's getting old and no one is changing anyones mind.
Alicat~I would like to ask you a couple of questions since you are a breeder of Boxers which are at many times considered a "Pit Bull type dog" and is currently banned or threatened in many states and cities of being banned because it is on a dangerous dog list...
Do you not find it essentially important to educate your future puppy buyers on BSL?
What will you do if you sell a puppy to someone who lives in an area that already has BSL enforced or will soon and because they weren't educated nor was the breeder the puppy is taken away and euthanized.
What are you going to do if BSL is passed in the city/town you live in and all your dogs are forced to be spayed/neutered or worse yet rehomed or euthanized?