Do you support BSL?

pudel

Who said anything about putting dogs to sleep?  I am against them being bred, I don't want them killed!

You know, I feel the same way about that as I do about meat-eating - if you desire the end result, you have to be willing to bring that end result about yourself.  If Pits are no longer bred at all, they will be extinct in 15 years or so.  If that's what you desire, then stand up behind your convictions and be willing to end their lives.  

Either they're all dangerous, in which case you SHOULD want them killed because who knows how much damage the Pits of the world can do in the next 15 years, or they are not all dangerous, in which case nothing about what you're saying makes sense, at least not to me.  You can't have it both ways, you don't get to have the breed "killed" (extinct) but say that the ones which are already alive are OK until they die of natural causes because you don't want the individual dogs killed. 

pudel

Chuffy

If someone deliberately breeds a mix with a stupid cutesie name, that is NOT a responsible breeder, or someone I would support or condone. 

Why are they not responsible? Because they have stupid cutesie names?  It's only responsible if all the puppies have the same ear shape, or coat type, or size? 

THIS is a whole 'nother issue.  If you want to discuss it, open another thread, because it's waaaaaay too OT for this one, so I am not discussing it here. 

Benedict

Either they're all dangerous, in which case you SHOULD want them killed because who knows how much damage the Pits of the world can do in the next 15 years, or they are not all dangerous, in which case nothing about what you're saying makes sense, at least not to me. 

His argument is not taht they are dangerous, bt that they shouldn't be born because they are abused.

He obviously has not seen the statistics on the fathers who abuse their children. 

Now *I* would say in both cases that the efforts should be channeled into punishing the abuser, not preventing the birth of the potential abuse-ee.  Pudel appears to want to prevent the birth of the potential abuse-ee - in the dog's case anyway. 

Edit - it still doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.  It's a sticking plaster solution, whichever way you look at it ("they are dangerous" or "they are wisely abused".) 

Chuffy

His argument is not taht they are dangerous, bt that they shouldn't be born because they are abused.

You're right, I got confused.  That's even less of an argument, IMHO, if that's possible, but to each their own.

Benedict

Either they're all dangerous, in which case you SHOULD want them killed because who knows how much damage the Pits of the world can do in the next 15 years, or they are not all dangerous, in which case nothing about what you're saying makes sense, at least not to me.  You can't have it both ways, you don't get to have the breed "killed" (extinct) but say that the ones which are already alive are OK until they die of natural causes because you don't want the individual dogs killed. 

 First, I don't think they are dangerous at all and I never said they were.  That is a whole different reason for BSL and I don't share that view.

Second, most of the pits that are born are killed, either by the dog fighting people or they die in kill shelters. There is no reason that any dog who has an owner, or who has the opportunity to have an owner, should be killed.  I just don't want more added to the world just so most of them can meet that fate.

Chuffy

THIS is a whole 'nother issue.  If you want to discuss it, open another thread, because it's waaaaaay too OT for this one, so I am not discussing it here. 

 Honestly, I don't want to discuss it.  I just mentioned it because  I'm being accused of making decisions for people on what they should breed and own and wanting to violate their rights. 

pudel

Benedict

Either they're all dangerous, in which case you SHOULD want them killed because who knows how much damage the Pits of the world can do in the next 15 years, or they are not all dangerous, in which case nothing about what you're saying makes sense, at least not to me.  You can't have it both ways, you don't get to have the breed "killed" (extinct) but say that the ones which are already alive are OK until they die of natural causes because you don't want the individual dogs killed. 

 First, I don't think they are dangerous at all and I never said they were.  That is a whole different reason for BSL and I don't share that view.

Second, most of the pits that are born are killed, either by the dog fighting people or they die in kill shelters. There is no reason that any dog who has an owner, or who has the opportunity to have an owner, should be killed.  I just don't want more added to the world just so most of them can meet that fate.

I admitted above that I had confused your reasoning with that of others, I still don't agree with it.  I have no idea how you think that implementing mandatory spay/neuter of pits so that the breed dies out in 15 years is somehow going to be more effective than campaigns to prevent dog-fighting and animal abuse.  The people who break those laws are the people who will break the mandatory spay/neuter laws and those are the people you need to reach most of all.  Do you honestly think that Michael Vick, who gave NO thought whatsoever to laws against dog-fighting except perhaps to think about how to avoid getting caught, would have spayed and neutered his dogs because the law said he had to?  Why would the S/N law magically be more effective and have a 100% compliance rate? 

I hope you reply doesn't get ignored or lost. It's not the dog or breed, it's the human. Getting rid of pit bulls will not get rid of dog fighting or dangerous dogs. Dog fighters will simply pick another breed and plenty of dogs that aren't pit bullls will bite because they are not properly socialized and trained. BSL will never solve the problem. I would rather PTS the abusive human but we don't get to do it my way (sorry for being so brusque but I can't stand bullies.) If you get rid of dog fighters, you get rid of dog fights. I'm not against BSL because I have an affection for pit bulls. My favorite breed is Siberian Husky, which actually used to rank higher on bites than pit bulls ever did. I'm against BSL because it is useless and only penalizes the law-abiding owner. Rotties and Dobies used to be the "bad" dogs. Now it's pit bulls. And pit bulls can be bred away from their baiting tenacity. It's called breeding for temperment. The dog is not bad, the human is.

I also realize that some will simply not be swayed by my words, no matter how logical they are. But I can sleep at night knowing that I am right. Not just right because I may or may not win a debate or show by a logical argument why my view is better. I am right because I am right, surely as the sun rises and sets. And I know that sounds arrogant and I can't help it. It's not arrogance. Sometimes, a person is simply right, as you are Benedict, and no amount of apologetics or debating or emotion to the counter can change that.

Here is what will fix the pit bull problem. Breed for temperment, rather than fighting ability and bite tenacity.

Second, put criminals in jail or execute them.

The second one is harder to do than the first one.

 I definitely DO NOT support BSL in any way. For the rest that are also anti-BSL i encourage you to vote here...

Very interesting thread and very interesting view points! I am against BSL simply because it's a band-aid solution to the real problem and that's irresponsible dog owners. If you look at the background of dogs that were involved in attacks, you will find that the majority of these dogs were not spayed/neutered, were irresponsibly kept(i.e chained up in a yard with minimal human contact), were not obedience trained, were not properly vetted and their owners were often clueless about canine behavior(i.e allowing children to jump on/harrass the dog until it reached it's snapping point). Because you can't ban moronic people, it's much easier to ban a breed(or even other breeds/mixes that share the same characteristics). Time has already told us that BSL does not work because if these fruit cakes do not follow the laws that are already in place(such as leash laws or animal abuse laws) then they're going to disregard any new laws or they'll find a way around them(such as moving on to another breed that's not affected by BSL).

For those who don't know, my best friend was recently mauled by a bunch of Pit Bulls. She even made the news. Even she wouldn't ban Pit Bulls, and her family has owned them, because she knew it had nothing to do with the breed but with the idiot owner who did not have his dogs properly contained on his property, they were not vaccinated, they were not spayed/neutered, they were not properly socialized and they never saw the inside of an obedience class. She knows that if it wasn't Pit Bulls, it could've easily been Rottweilers, Dobermans or German Shepherd Dogs.

Anyways, another problem I have with BSL is that it affects good people instead of those it was intended for. There's millions of dogs in this country and I would say a good chunk of them are Pit Bulls and other breeds affected by BSL. The majority of these dogs are well behaved and well loved family pets. I own a Rottweiler and I own Boston Terriers which are CONSTANTLY mistaken for Pit Bulls. My dogs are spayed/neutered, obedience trained(Shelby even has her CGC and Rally Novice title), are properly vetted,  are properly contained on my property and are never allowed to roam off leash. I consider myself to be a responsible dog owner. There are several responsible dog owners on here such as Jaime with her Amstaffs. Why should people like Jaime and me, our dogs and our chosen breeds have to pay the price for irresponsible idiots? I say target the individuals and make them pay the price for their crimes. Individuals should be held accountable for their actions... not the group as a whole.

pudel

Benedict

Either they're all dangerous, in which case you SHOULD want them killed because who knows how much damage the Pits of the world can do in the next 15 years, or they are not all dangerous, in which case nothing about what you're saying makes sense, at least not to me.  You can't have it both ways, you don't get to have the breed "killed" (extinct) but say that the ones which are already alive are OK until they die of natural causes because you don't want the individual dogs killed. 

 First, I don't think they are dangerous at all and I never said they were.  That is a whole different reason for BSL and I don't share that view.

Second, most of the pits that are born are killed, either by the dog fighting people or they die in kill shelters. There is no reason that any dog who has an owner, or who has the opportunity to have an owner, should be killed.  I just don't want more added to the world just so most of them can meet that fate.

Well, if that's your argument, then you'd better take a look at the breeds they're gassing in the shelters down south, or the dogs that end up in the dead bins of every major open admission shelter.  Your argument suggests that no one should ever breed ANY dog, lest they end up in a shelter or dead.  But, the fact is that RESPONSIBLE breeders will accept a pup back for its lifetime, making the whole argument against breeding null and void.  If what you want to eliminate is IRRESPONSIBLE breeding, then that is not a problem that only exists within the Pit Bull breeding community.  Putting one breed up for extinction is not going to solve the problem.

Chuffy

pudel

Chuffy

If someone deliberately breeds a mix with a stupid cutesie name, that is NOT a responsible breeder, or someone I would support or condone. 

Why are they not responsible? Because they have stupid cutesie names?  It's only responsible if all the puppies have the same ear shape, or coat type, or size? 

 

THIS is a whole 'nother issue.  If you want to discuss it, open another thread, because it's waaaaaay too OT for this one, so I am not discussing it here. 

Was just reading the "doodle" thread.  Apparently there are plenty of people here who feel they have the right to determine who can breed what.

pudel

Was just reading the "doodle" thread.  Apparently there are plenty of people here who feel they have the right to determine who can breed what.

To me, such a judgement seems out of context. People here favor pure-bred breeding, yes. But they favor it for the health and future of dogs, not just to make a quick dollar by breeding flavor of the month. Do we wish people wouldn't mix breeds? Mostly, that is true. What is even more important than the actual breed is the research that goes into the breeding. There are some purebred lines that should not be bred anymore. Too many problems, etc, etc. But it is always for the benefit of the dog, not the human. In fact, quite a number of people here fancy the Am Staff and even the generic "Pit Bull" and wish to see the breed shine. And some fancy the original Staffordshire line, as well. It's not of a desire to decide who will breed what, it's a desire to see the pit bull dogs be bred for companionship and good temperment. It's a desire to see that gangsters do not breed dogs for fighting. And I'll stick my neck out and say that dog-fighers should be stopped. The only way to do that is to put the dog-fighters in jail. Getting rid of the dog does not get rid of the problem. Not only is dog-fighting illegal but plenty of dog-fighters are also into other criminal activities.

But it's easier to pick on a dog than to face down a human. I would rather do the latter. If we could just get municpalities to get on that page we could really solve the problem.

Here's another solution but bear with me as I explain why it could work. In one of the southeastern states, there are a few towns that forgo prosecuting gun charges during a criminal arrest. Instead, they turn the gun charges over to the US prosecuting attorney. Fed gun charges are punishable by a mandatory minimum of 5 years, no parole. After a while, cops noticed on their drug raids that the suspects had no guns with them. The suspect would say, "Are you kidding? Guns are 5 years in the fed, and then you have to serve the local after that. I can do a year or two here and get out for good behavior but there ain't no getting out of the fed." I think it would be cool to do the same thing with dog-fighting. Make it a mandatory sentence, one way or another. Point being, that our sentencing and punishment is too light. And before actually getting to sentencing, we need to have our locals make it a priority to stop dog-fighting. Have them concentrate on the criminal activity that includes dog-fighting, rather than getting rid of the dogs. Same as concentrating on firearms in the commission of a felony. They didn't have to make more gun laws or take guns away from lawful citizens. They simply enforced the law on the books. Of course, that means going up against gangsters rather than shooting a dog. It just takes a couple of guys and gals with some backbone and some compassion for the victims, which include dogs.

 I wish I could take you back to last year when I visited the Dallas SPCA. There was a 90 lb fawn Pit Bull named Hauss (pronounced "hoss";) but he just as well should have been named Marshmallow. He would come to the door of the kennel and lower his head so you could rub his neck. My dog, being shy as a breed trait, is likely to remain aloof until he knows you better.

Another thing I would like to address was an earlier comment meant to "disprove" the fact (an already historically established fact) that bad guys will simply pick another dog for fighting by saying if that were so, why aren't they using other dogs besides the pit bull. I have to go no further than Michael Vick. One of the charges against him came from the fact that he would kill dogs that didn't fight well. My point there is that the pit bull is no more designed for fighting than any other breed and the dog fighter runs into the same problem that pure breeders have. Guaranteeing the outcome of a litter. Out of a litter, one dog might adapt to what he wants well enough. The others simply won't fight or fight badly and they are culled. This gives the appearance of creating a mean breed but that is only because the ones who's "defect" is that they are too much like Hauss don't survive to breed.

Also, PB owners here own the dog not because it appeals to a macho image but because the dog fits into their life and is a sweetheart. And many PB owners go the extra mile in training their dogs not because the dogs are inherently vicious but because they must counteract the public's perception and give no reason to fear.

Also, controlling breeding and having standards of breeding is not the same as getting rid of a breed.

At least we all can express our opinion, though.

ron2

To me, such a judgement seems out of context. People here favor pure-bred breeding, yes. But they favor it for the health and future of dogs, not just to make a quick dollar by breeding flavor of the month. Do we wish people wouldn't mix breeds? Mostly, that is true. What is even more important than the actual breed is the research that goes into the breeding. There are some purebred lines that should not be bred anymore. Too many problems, etc, etc. But it is always for the benefit of the dog, not the human. In fact, quite a number of people here fancy the Am Staff and even the generic "Pit Bull" and wish to see the breed shine. And some fancy the original Staffordshire line, as well. It's not of a desire to decide who will breed what, it's a desire to see the pit bull dogs be bred for companionship and good temperment. It's a desire to see that gangsters do not breed dogs for fighting. And I'll stick my neck out and say that dog-fighers should be stopped. The only way to do that is to put the dog-fighters in jail. Getting rid of the dog does not get rid of the problem. Not only is dog-fighting illegal but plenty of dog-fighters are also into other criminal activities.

Very nicely said Ron and so on the money!

pudel

 First, I don't think they are dangerous at all and I never said they were.  That is a whole different reason for BSL and I don't share that view.

Second, most of the pits that are born are killed, either by the dog fighting people or they die in kill shelters. There is no reason that any dog who has an owner, or who has the opportunity to have an owner, should be killed.  I just don't want more added to the world just so most of them can meet that fate.

Lets see....#2-killed by dog fighting people- a felony in these United States, a people problem, not a breed problem. There should be more focus on stopping the people problem and enforcing more stringent laws and penalties against teh people doing it...the dogs surely didn't organize the pit fight.

#2 or they die is shelters- like so many other breeds??

So your reasoning, which again is a PEOPLE PROBLEM, not a breed problem would stop me from breeding my own dogs by your criteria of BSL. Make the breed extinct by not allowing anyone to breed it again because they are abused. This way of thinking would put a hardship upon many, many responsible families and good pets.

BSL means that they must be done away with so in essence you would be killing all of them. If you are not familiar with Denver's BSL and the dramatic way they instituted their BSL go to google and search Pit BUll+BSL+Denver see what it brings up for you. Many good pets lost their lives and many families where devistated.

Luckily I live in a state where BSL is against the state law so that even municipalities can not impose it..if it came to me giving up my dogs or moving I would move and do what ever I needed to in order to keep my dogs safe from uneducated people.