Do you support BSL?

 **content removed, rude/unecessary**

tessa_s212

Fact is, BSL does not decrease dog bites. No matter the reasoning of if it should or shoudln't be put into place... that is simple fact. It does not decrease attacks or fatalities. Therefore, there is no reason for it to be in place because it is mere waste of the people's tax dollars. 

I do understand what you are saying and I do live in an area where pit bulls are bred to fight and act as thugs' guard dogs, so hear me out. All of the shelters here are full of them, well the ones that are not instantly euthed when they arrive.   I also agree that it is horrible that these wonderful dogs are bred to fight each other and are horribly treated and abused. It is truly heartbreaking.

 I firmly believe that you won't ever change human nature by simply eliminating the "problem breeds".  Mankind has been fighting animals for centuries and we can't bury our heads in the sand about our own nature. We can only strive to be better. 

There are many laws designed to protect man from his own stupidity and the stupidity continues.

 Admin Speaking...

BEFORE I go back through this thread and decide what to edit, I'm posting to remind everyone that the rules of civility and decorum under which we all function have not been temporarily suspended for this thread.

Be polite, be respectful, and keeping those 2 things in mind, challenge the points made, not the person making them. 

JackieG

There are many laws designed to protect man from his own stupidity and the stupidity continues.

This is true, although I find it ironic that the same people who state that laws are useless are the same people who applaud when those guilty of animal abuse are prosecuted and sentenced, thanks to the laws that are in place.  Imagine how we would feel if there were no laws against dog fighting or animal abuse?  While one can say that while dog fighting should be a crime but breeding is not, very, very few pitbulls are bred for purposes other than fighting or to appeal to the "macho guy with the vicious dog" image.  Even the so called "responsible" breeders of pit bulls are still perpetuating the dog fighting pit bull image by continuing the existance of the breed and thus causing harm to so many dogs.  To lump the plight of pit bulls in a category with beagles and labs is plain foolishness.  The only argument to continue the breed is because certain people "like" the breed and enjoy its existence.  That is not in the best interest of the millions of suffering pit bulls.

pudel

The only argument to continue the breed is because certain people "like" the breed and enjoy its existence. 

That could be said of many many breeds,...so what is your point with the statement above? You get to pick and choose?

tessa_s212

 The pit bull is not the first of its kind to experience the evil of humans. Not even close to it. PETA would have you believe that they are, and that no person woudl ever inhumanely treat, beat, abuse, or treat with such malice any other breed of dog... but that is perhaps one of the biggest peices of garbage I've heard concerning reasons to support BSL.

If one truly cares about the breed of dog, they find a way to help the dog without entirely eradicating them.  Why in the world would you ever want to punish a dog for something a human has done?

Also, the MYTH and LIE about NO people, other than dog fighters and irresponsible owners, go to shelters to adopt pit bulls is just another bunch of garbage that the terrorist organization PETA would have you believe.

Besides, if you'd like to go wth THAT route.. labs are a huge problem in shelters. Should we just ban those as well or automatically kill them considering "no one" goes to a shelter to look for a large black lab.

 I have to say tessa that I totally agree with what you have posted. The AR groups certainly orginated the "the best way to save them is to kill them all" logic. I actually had someone in my class that killed her young pit bull when it started having fights with another, older same sex dog. Her reason? She couldn't live with having to keep the two dogs separated and she KNOWS (thanks to AR propaganda and the well meaning but misinformed owners who help spread it)  that the only type of people who ever would want pit bulls are dog fighters, thugs, drug dealers and other animal abusers. Very sad situation, how could someone really argue that it is in a young, healthy, friendly animal's better interest to be killed?

 And of course, there's Denver where people's pet pit bulls have been taken from them and euthanized thanks to a breed ban.

"The Denver ordinance bans ownership or possession of the
Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Bull
Terrier and the American Pit Bull Terrier and/or any dog with a
majority of physical traits of one or more of these breeds
within the city or county of Denver. Since 2005, as a result of
this ordinance, several hundred dogs within the city limits
had been euthanized." 
http://denverkillsdogs.com/InTheNews.html

Can you imagine what it would be like to be in constant fear that your dog will be discovered by the authorities and taken from you just because of the breed he/she happens to be? Your breed won't be banned, so why worry? (Or another variation that I call the "Pit Bull Sacrifice Theory" - support banning Pit Bulls in hopes that it will pacify the AR groups and government, so they won't come after you and your breed.) AR supports breed banning of "Pit Bulls" only because they are an easy target. If sucessful with it though, don't think for a minute they won't start after another breed, then another. You know dachshund were recently named the breed most likely to bite, with JRTs and Chihuahuas coming in behind them. AR would happily work their way down the list of breeds posted on the biting statistics one at a time once Pit Bulls are gone. Or maybe even multiples once they get the general public on the breed-banning bandwagon. Getting some of the most common purebred breeds banned would be a major step towards the AR goals. They are already swaying the general public's opinion about purebreds and the general public more than ever is pro-"adoption" of shelter and rescue dogs and against buying purebred puppies. These are small steps which will lead to big problems for any of us who wish to maintain the right to own the sort of dog we choose to.

AgileGSD

They are already swaying the general public's opinion about purebreds and the general public more than ever is pro-"adoption" of shelter and rescue dogs and against buying purebred puppies. These are small steps which will lead to big problems for any of us who wish to maintain the right to own the sort of dog we choose to.

You state this as if it's a bad thing. Maybe it is for you and your "rights", but how horrible of a sacrifice these poor dogs have to endure so that you can freely do whatever it is that you want to do.  And another thing, just because you are against bringing more of these tortured souls into the world  because you fear for their well-being does not mean you support AR.  You are making big genralizations.  And as for AR propaganda, there is just as much propaganda being spread by the breeding community and other groups such as the Dog Owners Association, the Gun Dog Association, the Agriculture Business etc etc..., don't think they don't have propaganda themselves, spreading their own lies and false truths - attempting to spread fear into the public that it's harmful to spay and neuter your pets, and that any kind of restriction on the outragious volume of  breeding of pets infringes on your "rights", and now wanting to save a shelter life is also infringing on your rights.  Your poor rights...while millions of living, breathing beings suffer at the hands of those who feel it is their "right" to engage in dog-fighting, and starve their dogs while leaving them chained outdoors all night to "toughen them up" for the next fight.  I suppose we are supposed to care about their rights too.

pudel

And as for AR propaganda, there is just as much propaganda being spread by the breeding community and other groups such as the Dog Owners Association, the Gun Dog Association, the Agriculture Business etc etc..., don't think they don't have propaganda themselves, spreading their own lies and false truths - attempting to spread fear into the public that it's harmful to spay and neuter your pets, and that any kind of restriction on the outragious volume of  breeding of pets infringes on your "rights", and now wanting to save a shelter life is also infringing on your rights.  Your poor rights...while millions of living, breathing beings suffer at the hands of those who feel it is their "right" to engage in dog-fighting, and starve their dogs while leaving them chained outdoors all night to "toughen them up" for the next fight.  I suppose we are supposed to care about their rights too.

Thank you Pudel for saying so eloquently what many think but don't voice because we are not up to  the war of words that ensues.

Tena

Pudel are you planning to answer my question regarding your statement on breeds and the reason for breeding?

The railroad decided they did not want the caboose at the end of the train.  It was removed.  Although the last car is not a caboose in form, it is in function. 

 Now to apply this same paraphrased proverb to the current discussion we must consider this:  Does banning a breed of dog have any impact on the behavior of the people who want to own them?  Not likely, if you have good social skills, you will keep them.  If you abuse dogs, you will likely continue.  Back to the caboose,  if you ban bull breeds, a new breed becomes the "last" car.  Those who are involved in animal fighting will just look at the dogs available and pick a new "BAD" dog. 

 A number of posts suggest that banning pit and bull terrier type dogs will stop dog fighting.  Nope, just look at the UK and their considerable lack of success reducing the dogs themselves and stopping dog fighting.  Animal fighting is a cultural thing.  It happens in many, many, many cultures. 

BEFORE ANOTHER LAW IS PASSED, ENFORCE THE ONES WE HAVE.

tessa_s212

It is rare to truly find a news story in which a dog attack is truly just pure accident and unexplainable. Almost always humans have directly caused it. 

ON this we agree a Million times!.  IN the area I live , and again I said MODIFIED BSL not the banning of a breed from a city (ie Denver) , But making the local yokel idiots understand it is not about making pocket money, it is not about churning out puppies to pay for your kid's college education fund and yes there are two breeders in Texas that our national Club has fought with long and hard because they have pups for that very reason and then believe they are upper middle class responsible folks?? 

The incident that I mentioned about the child being attacked in the back yard by the brand new PB while mom went in for a smoke or the phone is tragic an many levels, not the least of which is Why would anyone allow a child of I believe it was 3 yrs to be in the yard by them selves??? Let alone with a new dog of any breed.  I found myself thinking when this was reported ,  Gads what about Brown Recluse Spider Bites? or a fall from play ground toys,  Since the attack was ultimately ended by a neighbor driving by that tells me this kid could also have been plucked from the yard by a stranger and vanish for ever.... The adults in that case were ignorant on many, many levels and this could have been avoided for sure.

If you have a breed on a potential BSL list then you simply have to step up your game on every level.  I am not pro gun, I know a whole other ball of string there But my friends who are make sure they have protection for the guns! Gun safes and lock boxes, kids never allowed to touch them without a parent standing next to them.... an unattended gun is a huge problem. 

I know Banning Breeding would be nearly useless around here. I think the problem people would simply buy their vaccines on line and not report the breeding or litter.  The only thing additional laws could EVER do in my little corner of Heaven is allow the community, when they do become aware of a problem to potentially cause significant legal problems for the people involved. 

People know driving drunk is stupid , wrong and against the law....but DUIs still exist to the level some Attorneys in every city and county do only DUI and Drug cases..... Laws must have "teeth" in them , please pardon the unintentional pun , they HAVE to affect more than just the register owner or the owner of record... If a you loan you car to some one to run drugs and they get caught you lose that car to the Law. 

I do not think there is an answer and as much as I know we need laws here I also know they can be used as precedent in other cases where the enforcement of current laws simply did not happen...

Here is a small and very sad point about living without laws. A few years ago just outside Pensacola, Fl which is near my home some teens set a dog on fire.  They had to pass a law making this a federal offense.  Then a year or so later another law was passed when a man tied a pony to the back of his car at a carnival and forgot about it. It was dragged for a couple of miles on a public Highway before he finally was stopped by someone else who called cops on their cell then swerved in front of him to make him stop. Again there was finally a law put on the books that made what this guy did, while according to his atty , a simple mistake at the end of a long day , become something much bigger and unforgiving. Many locals were incensed,  Not that this animal had been so terribly injured that it was put down shortly after despite on of our vets putting around the clock care in to the pony.  But angry that the Gov was again "chipping away" at their rights...just because that guy made a mistake should not mean they have to alter their lives in anyway....  makes you want to weep doesn't it??

I am not against any specific breed and if I could change the owners I would be beyond thrilled.... there is no reason for folks to change if they do not fear the consequences for staying the same...

Bonita of Bwana

mrv

 A number of posts suggest that banning pit and bull terrier type dogs will stop dog fighting.  Nope, just look at the UK and their considerable lack of success reducing the dogs themselves and stopping dog fighting.  Animal fighting is a cultural thing.  It happens in many, many, many cultures. 

It actually looks as though those laws will be repealed and the Dangerous Dogs Act will be rewritten to handle individual dangerous dogs based on behaviour, rather than banning of "dangerous" breeds - which as you so rightly point out, hasn't worked here.  

pudel

You state this as if it's a bad thing. Maybe it is for you and your "rights", but how horrible of a sacrifice these poor dogs have to endure so that you can freely do whatever it is that you want to do. 

 Restrictive ownership laws are a bad thing for my rights and for your's. Or are you fine with the idea that people (including you) may not be permitted to own animals in the future?

pudel

And another thing, just because you are against bringing more of these tortured souls into the world  because you fear for their well-being does not mean you support AR. 

 Ironically, your statement that you are "against bringing more of these tortured souls into the world" is very in line with the AR movement. A basis of the AR agenda is extinction of domestic animals is the only appropriate course of action, due to the "suffering". You may be an AR supporter if...

pudel

attempting to spread fear into the public that it's harmful to spay and neuter your pets, and that any kind of restriction on the outragious volume of  breeding of pets infringes on your "rights", and now wanting to save a shelter life is also infringing on your rights.  Your poor rights...while millions of living, breathing beings suffer at the hands of those who feel it is their "right" to engage in dog-fighting, and starve their dogs while leaving them chained outdoors all night to "toughen them up" for the next fight.  I suppose we are supposed to care about their rights too.

 Except that there ARE drawbacks to spaying and neutering, it just isn't PC to say so (thanks to AR based propaganda being shoved down the public's throat for years).

And government restrictions on breeding affect the good breeders just as much or more than the "bad breeders" . Actually commercial breeders tend to be safe from these laws, being already liscensed by the governemnt.

 Last time I checked, dog fighting along with starving a dog is already illegal. Not real sure where you were going with that one...

 As for the "saving a shelter dog" infringing on my rights - I'm not sure where you're going with that either. Do you feel laws should require opwners to adopt from shelters? We actually have a shelter dog and I'm not against rescue at all. I am gainst the idea that the public should be lead to believe it is the ONLY way for them to be responsible, good owners (or do you prefer "guardians";).

mrv

The railroad decided they did not want the caboose at the end of the train.  It was removed.  Although the last car is not a caboose in form, it is in function. 

 Now to apply this same paraphrased proverb to the current discussion we must consider this:  Does banning a breed of dog have any impact on the behavior of the people who want to own them?  Not likely, if you have good social skills, you will keep them.  If you abuse dogs, you will likely continue.  Back to the caboose,  if you ban bull breeds, a new breed becomes the "last" car.  Those who are involved in animal fighting will just look at the dogs available and pick a new "BAD" dog. 

 A number of posts suggest that banning pit and bull terrier type dogs will stop dog fighting.  Nope, just look at the UK and their considerable lack of success reducing the dogs themselves and stopping dog fighting.  Animal fighting is a cultural thing.  It happens in many, many, many cultures. 

BEFORE ANOTHER LAW IS PASSED, ENFORCE THE ONES WE HAVE.

If it was so easy for another breed to pop up in the pit bull's place, then why aren't they there already? The whole dog fighting scene as we know it today in the US is based on  the worship of this one breed.   If breeds were so interchangeable, then you would see other breeds used in dog fighting with as much frequency as the Pit Bull.  Think about it - dogfighting is a competitive sport.  If there was a breed that fit their needs as well as the pit bull, don't you think that would be taken advantage of? And there are breeds that can fight like the pit bull but aren't used as much because they are not commonly available.  I seriously challenge the notion that dog fighting would exist in nearly the same frequency as it does today if there were no pit bulls.   It is just as likely that those involved in dog fighting would move on to some other illegal activity that doesn't involve torturing dogs.  The practice will continue as long as the right exists to produce the dogs. 

Regarding the situation in UK, it is apples and oranges.  You cannot compare policies in the US and Europe unless all over variables are the same.  Which they are not.  The culture, population, demographics, geography, government and law enforcement are different.  No other country has the same gluttonous, disposable mentality to the extent that we have here in the US.  Apparently you believe you can change that.  Good luck.

Every argument I hear against BSL, whether it's "the laws won't work" or "another breed will just pop up in its place"  or "don't punish the dogs because of stupid people" are all just a facade that they are hiding behind, when the real reason is their own self interest in owning a dog of this specific breed.

pudel

If it was so easy for another breed to pop up in the pit bull's place, then why aren't they there already? The whole dog fighting scene as we know it today in the US is based on  the worship of this one breed.   If breeds were so interchangeable, then you would see other breeds used in dog fighting with as much frequency as the Pit Bull.  Think about it - dogfighting is a competitive sport.  If there was a breed that fit their needs as well as the pit bull, don't you think that would be taken advantage of?

   It is true that Pit Bulls are cheap and easy to get, so they remain popular for fighting in the "ghetto" and rural areas. But that wasn't always the case. I can remember times when Pit Bulls were rarely ever seen, so some how they managed to gain widespread popularity over the past 20 years and it certainly is sticking your head in the sand to think it won't happen again. There are other breeds, in other countries prized as fighting dogs as well though and If Pit Bulls were no longer cheap and easy to get one of those breeds would take their place. Some of those breeds are already becoming easier to get and more common in parts of the US. And some of them would be a far bigger issue in the wrong hands than Pit Bulls are. A rare, mastiff breed is becoming common in my area. This breed was bred not only for dog fighting but to be a" man-stopper" for estate guarding. They are probably one of the most serious guard breeds there are and there are nearly constantly ads for them in our local paper. I already know a rather ignorant man (likes the biggest, most macho dogs there are) who ended up with a male and is now looking for a female so he can breed him. Also selectively bred mixed breeds could potentially be developed into superior fighting dogs, much as Alaskan Huskies are superior sled dogs.

http://www.bulldoginformation.com/fighting-dog-breeds.html

 In additional to the other breeds historically (and still into modern times) bred for fighting there are many other common breeds of dogs which could certainly be used for dog fighting. What it comes down to, is even if the governemnt managed to kill all Pit Bulls in the country, people who want to be involved with dog fighting will be unless all medium to large dogs with any tendency towards fighting are banned. Even then, fighting could continue with the smaller terrier breeds.

 To believe that people who want to fight dogs are going to say "oh well Pit Bulls are banned, I guess I'll move onto robbing banks" is foolish at best. Dog fighting is already illegal and that doesn't discourage the people who participate in it. Fighting dogs are often kept secretly as it is - abandoned houses, kennels out in the middle of no where so even if the breed was banned dog fighters are already used to hiding what they are doing. Why do you think a breed ban would be more effective than the current laws against fighting?