terrible dog attack

Will my proposal fix ALL the issues facing this breed?  No!  Will it however greatly reduce the problems?  Yes!!  Nothing will work 100% against ALL of the problems out there but that does not mean that no efforts to deal with the issue should be attempted!  Lets look at what the tragic case in the original post.  Would the person that owned the dogs been able to get a license for them?  NO, he had a record which involved violent crime.  Therefore when the AC had been called several times earlier because his dogs were out they would have had the tools they needed to take the dogs before they mauled a 90 year old man!  Could he have possibly kept the dogs in his basement??  Sure but if he did they would not have been able to maul his 90 year old neighbor! 

It has been reported on this thread that there were 3 other "pit bull" attacks in NYC the same week as this attack.  It has also been reported that Omaha is considering a ban due to the 4 people that ware attacked by pit bulls this week.  City after city are facing the problems which rightly or wrongly are being blamed on the "pit bull".  People are demanding that their local governments take action to protect them from these dogs.  Too often the "action" that the local governments take is to Ban all pit bulls or dogs that look like pit bulls.  Unless those that love the breed are willing and able to offer better solutions then the bans are the only options left for these local governments.  Yes there are responsible owners that are trying to change the the image of both the dogs and the dog owners through their example, those efforts are good and noble but they are NOT enough to convince these governments that the bans are not needed!  It does not matter how many pictures the media were to print of pit bulls recieving their CGC or of them filling the role of therapy dog, or search and rescue dog.....Because ONE picture of a 90 year old or a 15 month old mauling victim will wipe out all the good will the "good" owners have built up.  That may not be "fair" but it is reality and if people want to save these breed they better face that reality soon!

Mark

Marklf

Therefore when the AC had been called several times earlier because his dogs were out they would have had the tools they needed to take the dogs before they mauled a 90 year old man!

YES they had the tools.  There are already laws in place that are not currently ebing enforced.

Hey they can pass all the BSL you want, it wont solve a danged THING if they just.... don't enforce it.  And then NOTHING will change.  We nee dto enforce the laws we HAVE, not add more. 

Chuffy

YES they had the tools.  There are already laws in place that are not currently ebing enforced.

What tools did they have?  The people had reported that the dogs were loose thats it!  Not sure about NYC but in most cities that is NOT enough for the dogs to be taken unless AC catches the dogs loose and even then after the owners pay a small fine the dogs are returned!  If in fact the dogs were already caught by the owners when AC showed up the most that they would be able to do is issue the owner a ticket or more likely just a warning.  If my proposal was in place the AC could have checked to make sure the owner had paid a substantial amount for his license and checked to see if the dogs were fixed and insured.  Failure to do any of those would have resulted in the dogs being siezed on the spot!  The fact that the owner had a violent criminal history would have prevented him from being eligible to be licensed to own pit bulls therefor the AC could have taken the dogs and prevented this whole tragic event.  As it was they did not have the tools needed to take the dogs!

Mark

The situation above would only work if the dogs were ino pen daylight, running around, and caught. Most poorly bred fighting pits are kept locked up and no one is the wiser. It may stop some silly kid from parading an unlicensed dog, but it won't stop the hardcore dog fighters and bad breeders who are doing everything under the noses of the law anyway.

Will it however greatly reduce the problems? Yes!

I find it hard to believe considering the people causing the problems don't respect the law anyway and will always find way to skirt such issues. 

And like I said before , it is basically unenforeable unless AC searched people's homes for dogs, monitors every pregnant animal, etc. Face it, thugs and criminals aren't goigng to pay to register their dogs. They'd laugh at the notion, nothing more, and continue the underground business. Child porn is outlawed, but look how prevalent it still is through the hush-hush the black market!  Drugs are outlawed, but look how easy they are to get, despite police intervention. It would be, and is, the same with dogs.

I still maintain that reducing crime in general, and therefore "driving criminals out of business" as it were, would help a great deal more. Put moore oomph behind the police force, hire more men, better social programs for at-risk kids, etc....

 
We shouldn't be atttacking drugs, or aggressive dogs, we should be targeting at the level of the unethical PEOPLE doing this, via the ways I listed above.

Yes there are responsible owners that are trying to change the the image of both the dogs and the dog owners through their example, those efforts are good and noble but they are NOT enough to convince these governments that the bans are not needed!

What do you think we should be doing more of? Many of us are already heavily involved in vocal legislative groups, endlessly campaigning for the breed, educating people whenever we have the chance, etc....what more should be done, in your opinion?

Thats a nice and idealistic approach but having spent the majority of my adult life involved in law enforcement I can say that without the tools needed such those in my proposal there is nothing that law enforcement will be able to do!  The pupose of police is not to improve the ethic of the population!  The purpose of police is to enforce the laws without adequate laws the police can do nothing!!!  Unlike drug use or child porn which is something most do in secret have a "bad" dog for many is a status symbol but that status symbol only works if they can display it!  Take away the ability to flaunt their "bad" dogs and much of the motivation to have them goes away also.

Marklf

whtsthfrequency

What do you think we should be doing more of? Many of us are already heavily involved in vocal legislative groups, endlessly campaigning for the breed, educating people whenever we have the chance, etc....what more should be done, in your opinion?

Exactly what I have been saying through out this thread!  Owning up to the fact that there are issues associated with this breed and offering up solutions which will be acceptable to the general public.  Just repeating the mantra that the breed is not bad does nothing to convince the public which is conserned for their safety!  Coming up with pie in the sky solutions such as "targeting at the level of unethical people" without giving law enforcment the tools it needs to "target" them does little to address the concerns of the public.

Mark

Marklf

Could he have possibly kept the dogs in his basement??  Sure but if he did they would not have been able to maul his 90 year old neighbor! 

That's an excellent point. He failed to contain his dogs properly, which is against the law. It is here. In Texas, in the state and counties, you must keep all domestic animals contained. That means livestock and pets. In my town, a pet that leaves the property not under the control of the owner is at large and subject to seizure. We don't have an ACO in my town. Just a city plumber handy with a catch pole. He then will either return the dog to his home or call Sherman Animal Care and Control for transfer.

And yes, at times, the system fails. We should beef it up as it is, then maybe, think about adding more laws.

ron2

And yes, at times, the system fails. We should beef it up as it is, then maybe, think about adding more laws.

 I think that adding a fine would be helpful in teaching people to contain their pets. Even the most responsible owner can have something go wrong where a pet will escape, but I for one would be happy to pay my fine should that occur in the hopes that those who always let their animals run free might learn a lesson that hits them in the pocket book. If you are unable to pay the fine due to finacial circumstances them perhaps some community service hours at the local shelter would suffice.

 Here there is no fee for picking up your dog from the shelter.

Unlike drug use or child porn which is something most do in secret have a "bad" dog for many is a status symbol but that status symbol only works if they can display it! 

Yet dogfights and fighting dogs are kept/done in secret....People already involved in such a business don't give a damn if some dumb kid is parading his pit down the streets. Taking away their dog will do nothing to change the mindsets of people already involved in the business from breeding and recruiting.

without the tools needed such those in my proposal there is nothing that law enforcement will be able to do

Police have no tools to crack down or robbery, murder, theft, rape, etc? Because the more those problems are taken care of, the less crime there will be, meaning fewer criminals, and fewer criminals to participate in dogfighting.

ron2

That's an excellent point. He failed to contain his dogs properly, which is against the law. It is here. In Texas, in the state and counties, you must keep all domestic animals contained.

Anyones dog can get loose!  That hardly makes them a "criminal"!!!  If my dog gets away from me and gets picked up by AC I just have to go a pick it up!  Maybe I pay a small fine.  With my proposal the owners of pit bulls would have to show that they have a license for the dog (which they were required to pay a significant amount for plus undergo a criminal background check and attend training), they would also have to show that they have liability insurance for the dog.  If they cannot produce their license and insurance then they do NOT get the dog back!  They would also fine penalties for not being in compliance!  The laws that are in place now are not adequate.  There is nothing illegal about breeding dogs to have an aggressive temperment!  Their is nothing illegal about breeding these aggressive dogs to be oversized!  There is nothing illegal about parading your aggressive oversized dog around your neighborhood!  The only time the law becomes broken is when the aggressive, oversized dog gets loose and starts mauling the neighbors!  By then it is too late to prevent the damage!!!  By adding proposals like mine it at least gives law enforcement personel some tools to take action with BEFORE the dogs maul or kill someone.  It also allows those that are "responsible" pit bull owners to keep their pets (or as some have refered to them, their family members).  It would require that all pit bull owners recieve continuous training for thier dogs and that breeders of these dogs are licensed and activly working to remove aggressive dogs from the breeding stock.  I am not quite sure why those that claim to love this breed and want to improve it would object to these proposals??  Without proposals such as these the more and more cities will opt to ban the dogs outright!  Eventually these bans will lead to the Pit Bull being wiped out! 

Mark

 You still havent answered how AC is supposed to deal with the majority of unethical pit bull breeders/fighters/owners, who already hide their dogs and take them to "night fights"

Again, for the third time, I ask - are you insinuating that AC should have the right to search people's homes for dogs? Because that is the only way they would find them.

I don;'t support it because it would lead to inordinate fines levyed upon perfectly responsible dog owners and breeders, and would not even begin to address the problem of the underground dog ring because of  all my reason mentioned above, which you do not seem to be reading...

whtsthfrequency

Yet dogfights and fighting dogs are kept/done in secret....People already involved in such a business don't give a damn if some dumb kid is parading his pit down the streets. Taking away their dog will do nothing to change the mindsets of people already involved in the business from breeding and recruiting.

I saw nothing in the story that indicated that the owner of the pit bulls was in anyway involved in dogfighting???  He did have a criminal backround but it was for rape not dogfighting!  Most of the pit bull attacks that I am familiar with do not envolve dog fighters or thier dogs!  Most of them involve reckless owners who do not take adequate steps to prevent their dogs from becoming aggressive and harming their neighbors and families.  Too often these owners are ignorant of the potential for harm their dogs can do or they like the image of having a "bad" dog.  Those are the types of owners that my proposals would target because those are the people that seem to be owning the most problem dogs.

Mark

whtsthfrequency

 You still havent answered how AC is supposed to deal with the majority of unethical pit bull breeders/fighters/owners, who already hide their dogs and take them to "night fights"

Dog fighting is already illegal!  AC already has tools available to them when they find someone engaged in that illegal activity!  Most of the cases of people being mauled by pit bulls have nothing to do with dogfighting!

whtsthfrequency

Again, for the third time, I ask - are you insinuating that AC should have the right to search people's homes for dogs? Because that is the only way they would find them.

I have no problem with law enforcement personel conducting searches in complience with our Constitution!  But that is NOT the only way they would find them!!!!  AC encounter pit bulls on a daily basis without searching peoples homes!  People tend to allow there dogs out in public which removes any reasonable expectation of privacy.  Without a resonable expectation of privacy there is no search!  If owning a pit bul is a regulated activity (which it would be under my proposal) then for the most part AC would be conducting inspections instead of searches!

whtsthfrequency

I don;'t support it because it would lead to inordinate fines levyed upon perfectly responsible dog owners and breeders, and would not even begin to address the problem of the underground dog ring because of  all my reason mentioned above, which you do not seem to be reading...

What "fines" would be levyed on resposible dog owner????  I did not propose any fines for those that are "responsible"!!!!  You are right that my proposal is not going to end dog fighting rings BUT that is not where the majority of these dog attacks come from and there is already tools available for the AC to use to deal with dogfighters.

Mark

Didn't you say that someone wanting to register a pit bull would be required to pay a significant fine as well? That would include the responsible owners as well. And I was more using actual fighting dogs as an example...many aggressive dogs are simply kept locked away in backyards and basements.

Or people with dogs or mixes that resemble pits wouldb e hauled into court and  fined because they don;' have a registration for their dog which looks like a pit, but isnt (i.e. lab/boxer mix or english bulldog mix something of the sort)

And how easy would it be for a person stopped on the street by AC with his pit-mix dog  (or even a poorly bred APBT whp doesnt look like a pit, like the bowlegged bulldoggy ones) to simply say "This isn't a pit bull, it's an xxxx, so I don't have a registration." Then AC couldnt do much of anything.

whtsthfrequency

Didn't you say that someone wanting to register a pit bull would be required to pay a significant fine as well?

No I stated that they would have to get a license at a signififcant FEE!  Fines and fees are NOT the samething.  You pay a fee to get your drivers license but you pay a fine if you are caught speeding!

whtsthfrequency

And how easy would it be for a person stopped on the street by AC with his pit-mix dog  (or even a poorly bred APBT whp doesnt look like a pit, like the bowlegged bulldoggy ones) to simply say "This isn't a pit bull, it's an xxxx, so I don't have a registration." Then AC couldnt do much of anything.

I also addressed the issue of "questionable" dogs.  In the senerio that you just posted if the AC officer believed the dog was a Pit Bull he would take the dog and the owner would have the opportunity to go in front of a unbiased knowledgeable panel to make his case that the dog is not a pit bull. 

Mark