BSL.. why or why not?

[Deleted by Admins]

the real reason is that i feel it's very shortsighted and attacks the symptom rather than the cause

That's my reason as well.

I think that there could be a place for some breed specific legislation.  I wouldn't mind seeing special licensing requirements for earning certain breeds.  The average person should have some hoops to jump through to own certain breeds.  Would it really hurt the dogs if people were required to take an annual class on handling or have their dogs pass certain tests in order to keep them?  Owning dogs is a privilege, not a right.  If you have to do certain things to own certain breeds, especially  any breed that is on record as harming a sizeable amount of human beings, I don't automatically see a problem with that.

i happen to think that what you're suggesting should apply to ALL breeds.

Moderator here....
another hot topic, lol. Everyone remain respectful, exchange ideas, and make me proud. Thanks.

Breed SPecific legislation???

I thought the BS meant something else entirely..[]

Pro's for BSL - it blankets an entire area to make sure the citizens are not harmed or threatened by certain dangerous breeds.
Con's for BSL - it tars every dog of those breeds with the same brush. Remember the article where the woman was being attacked by the chow and the two pitbulls saved her? What if BSL was a law in her area? She may have either died or been damaged beyond belief for the rest of her life..... however i dont know if chows are on the list either, so maybe she would have avoided a problem all together.... *shrugs* i dont know about chows..

I see the reason for it. The government does not give most people enough credit to fix the problem themselves. They tend to have that opinion on many things pertaining to the public. Seat Belt Laws, Helmet Laws, Jay Walking, Open Container in a moving vehicle, to name a few.... If people would ACTUALLY do like they are supposed to, we wouldnt be faced with this. But in order to stamp out animal cruelty - fighting, or tormenting a dog until he is insanely aggressive and will attack anyone who enters the property- they feel they must ban the breeds most commonly used for those practices. It seems to be the best route to end the needless suffering of the abused. It looks to me that the majority of dogs rescued on those animal cop shows are pit bulls or pit bull types. and most of them almost always have some kind of physical damage done to them. If not that then they are too unpredictable to be adopted out.
These shows take place in huge metropolises  where crime is high and people are too busy to see to all the needs of a dog such as a bully type.

So there is my FOR BSL... but i still dont agree with it. For one thing, people dont need to leave their children in a risky situation with a dog. I love my dogs, but i love my kids even more. My dogs are awesome with kids, but i will NEVER leave a child alone with a dog of any breed or training. And i dont care how old the child is. they just dont know or understand a dog's emotions or body language. My first experience with an American Bulldog was when i was two years old. Yes i can remember back that far... i was at a baby sitters house... everyone was on the porch, including their dog. i walked up to him and grabbed him by his collar, he stepped right on me and knocked me down. If he had wanted to he could have bitten my face off and there would have been nothing anyone could have done to stop him in time. Fortunately he just gave me a good firm shove in the opposite direction, he didnt like me swinging from his rabies tags... but how many other kids are no longer with us because they did the same thing to the wrong dog? ANY dog...
they all have teeth. they all know how to use them.
There should be a special licensing for the ownership of certain breeds. that is the best idea so far. just like there are special permits to own a wolf or a tiger.... why not apply the same logic to these so called killer dogs? There are several ways to go about doing this. there are plenty of tattle tales that would love to report someone if they didnt have a permit. However its just easier to create a law that just removes the trouble all together. Trouble is... once the remove the "likely suspects" they will just see that other breeds bite as often as a bulldog or rottie..

its things like this that make me glad i live so far out in the country. the only law in this county regarding bulldog breeds is that they be leashed in public. No problems! I've got that covered!

I think that it's going to exist whether we like it or not until the day comes that thugs aren't breeding pit bulls to fight them in NY or putting chains on them you can tow a truck with.  Or, leaving chows outside to starve with chains embedded in their necks.  Or, leaving rotties in junkyards unattended.  Until these things stop, we are going to need BSL. 

ORIGINAL: badrap

this was mentioned on another thread, and i thought i would post it here. 

many of us are against BSL.  i thought it would be interesting to see WHY individuals have this opinion.  if you're PRO-BSL, i would be interested to hear intelligent arguments why you support it. 

for anyone who might not know, "BSL" stands for "Breed Specific Legislation".  BSL includes, but is not limited to, the banning of "aggressive" dogs, such as APBT, amstaffs, rotweilers, etc. 

i'll go first[]  i am unconditionally opposed to all BSL under any circumstances.  i could rant on and on about how it's a violation of my civil liberties, but the real reason is that i feel it's very shortsighted and attacks the symptom rather than the cause.  BSL makes no allowances for responsible breeders and owners.  it creates and cultivates a culture of fear.  it puts people in the difficult situation of choosing between their homes and their dogs.  it puts shelters in the difficult position of trying to market dogs as something they are not. 

i could go on and on.  but i'm interested to hear what everyone ELSE has to say...

I can't really say it any better then that.

I'll just add this:  I have read several mentions of licensing for dogs of breeds that cause large amounts of damage to humans.  In one community near us, a resident suggested banning pit bulls because they are dngorous.  The city officals responded (thank God for small favors) by saying that this made little sense.  They said that not only had pit bulls not really been much of a problem, but in fact of the dog attacks that did occur, labs were responsible for the vast majority.  In our area we in fact have a number of ill tempered labs.  The woman who had the face transplant in France had her face torn half off by her lab.  Now before anyone accuses me of lab hating, I'd like to point out that I have a lab and he is one of the biggest sources of joy in my life.  Sally (pit bull) may be my heart dog, but Jack is my Sunshine.  However, we specifically got him from a good breeder rather than a shelter because of this trend.  It's not just this area either.  This is a direct quote from yourpurebredpuppy.com about what to watch out for when considering a lab:

Unstable temperaments. Labrador Retrievers used to be one of the safest breeds you could buy, but sadly, this is no longer the case. Obedience instructors and behavioral consultants are seeing more and more Labrador Retrievers who are neurotic, hyperactive, or dominant/aggressive. It's the unfortunate result of popularity that the typically glorious Labrador Retriever temperament can no longer be taken for granted.
So I ask, should we then judge labs by the same sword as some of the "dangorous" (not sure who decides who is dangorous and who is not, but whatever) breeds?  They may not get the headlines, but as some of my local officals admitted, they are doing the deeds.

BSL gives a false and silly sense of security.  "Oh, well we've banned breed X, so we needn't worry about Dangorous Dogs."  There was a story not too long ago about a boy who lived in an area where BSL had been implemented.  The boy's family was forced to have their pet pit bull (who had done nothing other than happen to be born a pit bull) put to sleep to comply with the law.  Not long after that the boy was attacked by a GSD and received 300 stitches.  Yup, that law really protected him from those Dangorous Dogs, didn't it?

And where does it end?  I recently read about a city that is trying to ban all dogs over a certain weight (I believe it is 15lbs).  If we decide to ban all breeds that have caused human fatalities, we will not only be banning pis, rots, dobes, etc, but also airdales, huskies, Akitas, Mastiffs, English Bulldogs, and Malimutes.

While some cities are implementing BSL, there are also a number of cities that are repealing it, or flat out rejecting it in favor of common sense dog laws that affect all dog owners (I believe Indianapolis is one of these).  The county next to us recently proposed BSL.   Even  those that lived in the area and were working against it thought it would pass.  however, with lots of effort, it was abandoned, thank God.

Wow, I've said a lot for not originally intending to do anything but agree with badrap [].  Please excuse any spelling errors--it's 3 in the morning......

ORIGINAL: sillysally


I'll just add this:  I have read several mentions of licensing for dogs of breeds that cause large amounts of damage to humans.  In one community near us, a resident suggested banning pit bulls because they are dngorous...

 
I think licensing and banning are quite different concepts.  I wouldn't support banning any breed outright, but I can see where licensing could make a difference.

Well, do you think that people who own labs should have to get special licenses since they are the ones causing the majority of the trouble in this specific area?

ORIGINAL: sillysally

Well, do you think that people who own labs should have to get special licenses since they are the ones causing the majority of the trouble in this specific area?

Yes.  If there was going to be legislation to require licenses for breeds that cause the most damage to humans then I don't see why labs should be excluded. 

ORIGINAL: dlg81

ORIGINAL: sillysally

Well, do you think that people who own labs should have to get special licenses since they are the ones causing the majority of the trouble in this specific area?

Yes. If there was going to be legislation to require licenses for breeds that cause the most damage to humans then I don't see why labs should be excluded.

No breed should be excluded, then.
ANY and/or ALL dogs are dangerous if not handled by their owners properly.
And while it's unfortunate that BSL will continue to exist, doesn't mean I have to agree with it or lay back and think, "oh, well, this is the way it is." Because BSL forces all blame on the dogs. It, once again, isn't forcing humans to take responsibility for their actions. Sure, there can be "fluke" dogs every now and then, but that's with ANY breed.

And I don't have much more to say about it.

ORIGINAL: DumDog
its things like this that make me glad i live so far out in the country. the only law in this county regarding bulldog breeds is that they be leashed in public. No problems! I've got that covered!

Me, too.

BUT, all dogs should be leashed in public. Is that the law where you're at?
If not, it should be. Example as to why:

There is NO WAY IN HELL that I should have to leash my pit bull, but clueless lady down the street should be allowed to let her shih tzu-type dog run off leash.

Because...see...this makes it harder for me and for my dog. I have my dog controlled, she doesn't. Her dog runs up to mine and mine does NOT like other dogs. What happens?
And who gets blamed? Well, if it's my dog's TYPE that is the only type that has to be leashed, then my dog is to be blamed.

But would an incident occur if that shih tzu had the same laws placed on it as MY dog does? Nope.


I think it's crazy and mindless to place laws on certain breeds/types.