Do you support BSL?

Very interesting reading... Please keep in mind the fact that breed bans DON'T WORK to solve any problems when the problem is a human!

If you haven't been paying attention those "Pit Bull" people will move onto bigger and meaner dogs when their right to own the breed of choice of a Pit Bull is taken aways from them.

Responsible dog ownership of ANY breed would be the correct way to handle issues of irresponsible dog ownership where dogs are able to run loose and destroy animals and maul people. Keep in mind, this breed WAS NOT a breed that was feared in the 80's, 70's 60's, 50", 40's and before...This breed was popular amung a select group of people in those days, people who owned farms in the south. People who enjoyed the breed because of their natural ability to read strangers and NOT be protective UNLESS threatened. There are some people to this day who still feel the same and do own their dogs responsibly, me being one of them.

Public education is key when it comes to expressing issues regarding breed bans. It really isn't the dogs that are causing the problems it is the irresponsible human. Why would anyone feel they had the right to tell someone they can't own a specific breed of dog because of what OTHER people are doing? Why should entire "race" of dog be exterminated because of a person's opinion? Makes me think of Hitler and his ideal views of what the human race should consist of..only blonde haired, blue eyed caucasian people who beleived in his God...Oh maybe we can translate that to small, furry, white dogs who only worship people and have few teeth???

It all boils down to perspective doesn't it? My perspective is my dogs are loyal loving companions who excell at getting along with the rest of my dogs and people on a daily basis. Who are under control at all times and are ruled by French Bulldogs. Your perspective seems to be that this breed of dog doesn't have a right to live because of the potential it can cause due to ownership....

Jaime

Happily owned by Am Staffs who fights BSL on a daily basis

amstaffy

Makes me think of Hitler and his ideal views of what the human race should consist of..only blonde haired, blue eyed caucasian people who beleived in his God...Oh maybe we can translate that to small, furry, white dogs who only worship people and have few teeth???

Jamie, I have been reading BSL debates on this forum for years and just when I thought no one could come up with anything to new to add - LOL! 

I lived thru the seventies when every "badboy" just had to have a Doberman!!

If the breed had been banned then, where would we be today? After the Dobe became a dime a dozen, the bad crowd went to Rotts. After the Rotts became overbred, the bad crowd could be seen around the Am Staff rings at the shows.

It could easily end with every working, terrier, and herding breed being banned

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/AG_may_soon_enter_fray_over_canine_laws.html

Coming to my city, as I knew it would. Sighing as I go off to ponder my next move.

whtsthfrequency

 

I lived thru the seventies when every "badboy" just had to have a Doberman!!

If the breed had been banned then, where would we be today? After the Dobe became a dime a dozen, the bad crowd went to Rotts. After the Rotts became overbred, the bad crowd could be seen around the Am Staff rings at the shows.

It could easily end with every working, terrier, and herding breed being banned

 

This is an extremely good point. we can keep on banning breed after breed after breed....you even said pudel, that if another breed replaced the ABPT in the "fight ring" that you'd ban it as well.....and it will amount to nothing because the dog isn't the problem. The uncaring, idiotic people are the problem. They are the ones who pick the dogs to fight, they are the ones who abuse them, they are the ones who live the moronic tough guy stereotype and make the dogs suffer for it.  And that's a MUCH harder problem to solve. Banning dogs doesn't hurt these people at all. They simply move on to another one, as has been done for decades and decades.

Well put, and accurate.   How often do you see a leashed, trained, neutered dog attack anyone????  It's not a dog problem, it's a human problem, and is best solved by legislating human behavior, not banning breeds and taking away law-abiding responsible peoples' rights to own their breed of choice.

denise m

Jamie, I have been reading BSL debates on this forum for years and just when I thought no one could come up with anything to new to add - LOL! 

Well after being owned by this wonderful breed for so long and the way history "repeats" itself it only makes sense to reference the obvious for some people for it to hit home.

 We live in America where we have certain rights and abilities, we are a fortunate group of people on this ground we call home. Other Countries don't have half the freedoms we do and I thank the Lord daily for the men and woman working for us to keep those rights for us.

Limiting what breed of dog we can own is only the tip of what could be our future if we allow the Government to remove this right. The problem as many have identified is a human issue, not a dog issue. Those irresponsible people should be held accountable for their actions, the dogs only know what they've been taught and what they feel is the way they should live, act and react. My introduction into this wonderful breed as many of you who have been here for years knows was a pit fighting dog that I rescued who turned out to be a fabulous house dog and loved my children like she grew up with them as a pup..I NEVER once worried for their safety around her and miss her still.

 Ponder this a little, government telling you what breed of dog you can't own today. Tomorrow what size car, what type of heating fuel, how many children you can have...it's happened in other Countries

~J~

Who would determine the breed of a dog in a case where there was a ban on pit bulls for example?  AC?  Does anyone have any first hand experience in dealing with this part of the issue?

The only *scientific* way would be DNA testing, which is still in its infancy with dog breeds (as those of us who have seen the results of those "what breeds are your mix?" genetic send-off tests). Some have suggested panels of "experts".....but how much of a mix would a dog have to be to be considered a pit bull? What if it was only 10% but LOOKED like one?  How would you determine such people's "expertise" on being able to tell how much ABPT is in a dog (or if it even IS a true ABPT) based on simply physical features?

Does the term "pit bull" encompass everything from Staffies to American Bulldogs? Because "pit bull" is a generic, short-hand name. It is not a breed, although it is used as a nickname to refer to one sometimes. Seeing "pit bull" in legislation would be ridiculous - it is generic and refers to dogs who "look like" something. You're going to tell someone their mix is banned because it "looks like" a "pit bull?"

That would be like banning pinto horses. Pinto is a coloring, a physical trait. Lots of different breeds can be pinto. Pinto is often used shorthand to refer to American Paint horses, which IS a breed. Like "pit bull" is shorthand for "ABPT" sometimes. Therefore, if you were going to ban Paint Horses (ABPT) you had better say Paint Horse in the legislation (and be able to *scientifically prove* that each horse to be banned is an American Paint) instead of just saying "ban pinto horses" which could be any breed.

Should distinction be based on looks alone? of course not, that's unscientific, implausible, logically ridiculous, and carries a huge inherent risk of bias.

The vet I worked for in the '80s in Topeka KS had that issue arise. Topeka had passed an anti pit bull law (may still have it), and one of our clients had a Boxer/Lab mix that got out of the yard and barked at somebody on the sidewalk. This dog was very well mannered, but I'm sure he did scare this pedestrian. Well, the police wanted to confiscate the dog since THEY determined that he was a pitbull. The vet went to bat for this client because he had been treating their dog since puppyhood, and he knew the folks that had the accidental litter (one more reason to neuter). End of story, the dog was returned to the owner, but in the end they did lose their homeowners insurance! 

I'm reminded of a thread from a long time ago, and I'm going to quote polarexpress. The entire BSL identification thing sounds so much like racial profiling in our human airports, etc it's amazing. There are a lot of comparisons you can draw between racial profiling ans BSL. Since this thread I've  done quite a bit of research and honestly have to agree with inne that racial profiling, has not worked, period.

You can substitute "pit bull" for "Muslim" in so many of these ideas.....

Ethical issues aside, using a human's physical appearance to determine if they are a potential threat is NOT effective. Skin color and bone structure are not good predictors of behavior nor are they fool proof predictors of religious affiliation or ethnicity. 

What does a Muslim look like? or What does a sucidal Muslim extremist look like? (isn't that what we're looking for???)

Seriously, if you describe a young man with a certain skin color and bone structure you'll be including people of Arabic descent and Greek and Italian etc....

So we decide to stop every young man who looks vaguely Middle Eastern. So now we're sure to get all the terrorists right?

WRONG The Middle East is not the sole exporter of religious extremists to the rest of the world.  There are millions of Muslims in the former Soviet countries and some of them are extremists who believe in killing people who are the "wrong" religion and they've done it. There are also Muslim extremists in Asia who have committed terrorist acts

So lets expand the profile---for  example we will now scrutinize anyone with skin tones that fall in this range: from pasty white skin (Russians/Bosnians) to super dark black skin (Ghana). I think this brings us back to searching everyone, doesn't it?

Not to start a debate over human racial profiling, but I thought the comparison was extremely interesting!

whtsthfrequency

Should distinction be based on looks alone? of course not, that's unscientific, implausible, logically ridiculous, and carries a huge inherent risk of bias.

This is an excellent point and one which the idiots who drew up the DDA (UK) completely missed.

Taken from the DEFRA website:

It is important to note that, in the UK, dangerous dogs are classified by “type”, not by breed label. This means that whether a dog is considered dangerous, and therefore prohibited, will depend on a judgment about its physical characteristics, and whether they match the description of a prohibited 'type'.

From Dog politics:

Originally a points system was developed and using this score system a Great Dane scored 85% and a Dachshund was shown to be 76% type.

“That a dog of the type known as a Pit Bull Terrier is an animal approximately amounting to, near to, having a substantial number of characteristics of the Pit Bull Terrier”.

If it wasn't so danged dangerous I could LAUGH!  I mean - I have a dog who is half staffy.  She looks NOTHING like a staffy.  She looks like a collie.

Take Ron - he has a dog who is part Sibe.  Now he looks a bit like a lab mix at first glance, but he has many traits of a Sibe.  So what if a dog  looked nothing like a "Pit bull" but still had the traits which people fear so much?  

So - how to determine if a dog is "illegal" or not, once a ban is in place?  Going simply by what a dog LOOKS like is clearly unfairr, ineffective and laughable.  Would it be better to go down the route of DNA testing and how costly is that going to be?  Would it not be better to spend that money targeting the root of the problem - bad PEOPLE.  Better enforcement of existing laws and tougher sentences for people convicted of ANY sort of animal cruelty would be an excellent start.

ETA - I do not support BSL.

Pudel - do you support THIS I wonder:

Following the introduction of the DDA it became almost routine for pet dogs to be seized often amidst scenes of great distress. Taken away frantically struggling on the end of a catch pole, whilst children cried and pleaded for their dogs life, to be kept kennelled at secret locations with no contact allowed was and is still remarkably acceptable according to the Act. Owners endured months and in some cases years of complex legal hearings desperately attempting to secure the return of their dog.

I would like to say this is just propaganda, but it isn't.  Any time an attack happens, there's a media frenzy, everyone jumps on the DDA bandwagon and mroe dogs are seized.  Some people, afraid of being seen as criminals, or believing the media hype about their "dangerous" dog, drop their dog off at the shelter.

Chuffy

This is an excellent point and one which the idiots who drew up the DDA (UK) completely missed.

Have you read about the efforts to repeal this and base the DDA on individual cases of dog behaviour?

 Yes, but so far I have not heard reports of success..... Have you?

 There was a bill presented in the House of Lords last week, who knows where it will go but it's a hopeful sign. 

ETA (taken from the KC website):

If passed the Bill will introduce three major changes to current dangerous dogs legislation:

• Instead of banning specific breeds of dog, the dog’s behaviour – as well as its treatment by its owner – will be used to determine if it is a risk to public safety.
• Instead of applying only to attacks that take place in public, the Bill will also make attacks on private property a criminal offence.
• It would be an offence to breed dogs for fighting or to keep a dog that has been used for fighting.

Bold above added by me.  I LOVE that part. 

Chuffy

Pudel - do you support THIS I wonder:

Following the introduction of the DDA it became almost routine for pet dogs to be seized often amidst scenes of great distress. Taken away frantically struggling on the end of a catch pole, whilst children cried and pleaded for their dogs life, to be kept kennelled at secret locations with no contact allowed was and is still remarkably acceptable according to the Act. Owners endured months and in some cases years of complex legal hearings desperately attempting to secure the return of their dog.

 If they weren't bred in the first place, this wouldn't happen.  I don't believe in seizing dogs - every living dog should have the opportunity to live a life well cared for by a loving owner.  Unfortunately, once a pit bull puppy is born, that will most likely not be his fate.  As I've stated, I do not believe in breeding pit bulls, or another "replacement" breed for that matter.  I honestly don't care about people's rights to own the breed of their choice (a major point where I differ with most of you).  I care about the future and welfare of the dogs.