terrible dog attack

And the criminals would keep their dogs hidden and "normal", responsible, innocent folks, would have their dogs taken away utnil/unless they could "prove" the dog was not a pit.  (Which is not alays possible by the way.)  Don't argue that point!  That has happened here.

Chuffy

And the criminals would keep their dogs hidden and "normal", responsible, innocent folks, would have their dogs taken away utnil/unless they could "prove" the dog was not a pit.  (Which is not alays possible by the way.)  Don't argue that point!  That has happened here.

I would imagine if a law such as Mark is proposing were instated, "responsible, innocent" owners would make sure their Pits were licensed and in compliance with the law. As for 'questionable' breeds, I think if there is no way to prove the dog is not a Pit, then they should also be required to comply under the new regulations.  If they can produce appropriate documentation proving otherwise, then they would obviously be exempt. The breed identification would have to be established at the time of licensing. Therefore the breed would be legally identified prior to any possible AC seizure. If you forget or chose not to license your dog then the burden of proof becomes yours.

I think dog fighting and cracking down on irresponsible dog owners in our neighborhoods are two different (yet equally important) issues. Dog fighting IMO is a matter of animal cruelty and abuse. Irresponsible owners is a matter of public safety.  And as Mark pointed out before, if criminals keep their dogs 'hidden' away, they are not as likely be involved in a random attack.   

Practically every city and state (or some combination there of) have leash laws, husbandry laws, vaccine laws (rabies) and licensing laws.  If you add dangerous dog laws, there is plenty on the books already.  There are however limited number of employees or systems to track the compliance with vaccine and licensing.  There are too few agents to to cruise and investigate complaints of loose or potentially dangerous dogs. 

Now consider what would it take to deal with the situation.  Money would need to be allocated.  That will not happen without community activism.  Face it, consistent long term enforcement is expensive.  The problems happen, folks get riled up, and politicians act.  Oh no,,, another unfunded mandate that will have numerous unintended outcomes.

Get money in your neighborhood routed to AC and you might see better enforcement.  Pass another law,  doubt you will see a difference.

Fine vs fee is semantics. It still involves money being paid, and in this case, a "significant" amount of money required to be paid.

Who would this knowledgeable panel consist of? Even very good "dog-people" could have trouble deciding if a dog who looked very like a APBT what a true ABPT or not. Even an ABPT breeder may not be able to tell some! Some are easy to tell, some are almost identical.

There is NO sure way to tell if you don't know or can't prove the parentage. It reminds me of the death penalty. If one innocent man is killed, it doesn't matter how many bad guys are killed. That means the system is flawed. If one person with a mix that looks like an ABPT and is actually not is subjected to fees/fines, or worse has their dog taken away because they do not have a license...then it's a flawed system.

Would the person be required to run blood tests on the dog? Remember, blood tests for breed types are still in their infsancy and very unreliable.

 

whtsthfrequency

 

 Do you really expect these people, who already fragrantly defy laws (i.e. dogfighting) and do not care about their dogs, are going to go through all that trouble? No! They are going to laugh and continue buying from sneaky, backyard breeders, keep the dogs caged in basements and in the backyards...Unethical backyard and fighting breeders will continue skirting the law, hiding their dogs, etc, which is not that hard to do. the only people that will be affected by this type of licensing and significant fees are the responsible, law-abiding ABPT owners, who will go through it to keep their dogs. A crackdown on crime is needed, not a crackdown on the breed.

Yes, BUT plain and simple, if the dog is seen in public without proper registration the dog is taken away. Granted they will still be tied up in back yards and hidden in garages but if the money used for registration is used to crackdown I think it is a better alternative then whats currently going on. It would pain me to have to register my dog as a potenially aggressive dog but not as much as it would to face BSL.

denise m

Chuffy

And the criminals would keep their dogs hidden and "normal", responsible, innocent folks, would have their dogs taken away utnil/unless they could "prove" the dog was not a pit.  (Which is not alays possible by the way.)  Don't argue that point!  That has happened here.

 

I would imagine if a law such as Mark is proposing were instated, "responsible, innocent" owners would make sure their Pits were licensed and in compliance with the law. As for 'questionable' breeds, I think if there is no way to prove the dog is not a Pit, then they should also be required to comply under the new regulations.  If they can produce appropriate documentation proving otherwise, then they would obviously be exempt. The breed identification would have to be established at the time of licensing. Therefore the breed would be legally identified prior to any possible AC seizure. If you forget or chose not to license your dog then the burden of proof becomes yours.

I think dog fighting and cracking down on irresponsible dog owners in our neighborhoods are two different (yet equally important) issues. Dog fighting IMO is a matter of animal cruelty and abuse. Irresponsible owners is a matter of public safety.  And as Mark pointed out before, if criminals keep their dogs 'hidden' away, they are not as likely be involved in a random attack.   

I think these are all lovely ideas - but how would they be enforced, how much would that cost and who would pay for it initially?  And what about the people who just don't bother to register or license the dog and keep him/her out of sight?  Are animal control going to search every house in case there's unregistered dogs there?  Do you not think that would be labour intesnive, time consuming, difficult and costly?  Not to mention intrusive?  Introducing more laws and more red tape that is not realistically enforceable seems like a waste of resources to me.

Mark made a great point that even if animal control HAD seized the dog, they would have had to hand it back to the owners if they stepped forward and paid the fine.  A heftier punishment for owners of latch key dogs would be a good idea IMO but that should be across ALL breeds.  That would be an excellent start.  Small steps in the right direction, educating the public and promoting responsible pet ownership, REGARDLESS of breed.... that's what I think need sto be done and it's not breed specific.

whtsthfrequency

Fine vs fee is semantics. It still involves money being paid, and in this case, a "significant" amount of money required to be paid.

It is hardly "semantics"?  A fee is what is paid for goods or services(in this case a license) a fine in punitive in nature and would only be paid by those that fail to comply with the law.  Yes the fee to own a pit bull should be "significant" and even more significant for those that keep their pit bulls intact so that it will discourage those that are not dedicated to the breed from keeping them.  I would also suggest discounts on the license fees for those that have their dogs attain their CGC or therapy certification.

whtsthfrequency

Who would this knowledgeable panel consist of? Even very good "dog-people" could have trouble deciding if a dog who looked very like a APBT what a true ABPT or not. Even an ABPT breeder may not be able to tell some! Some are easy to tell, some are almost identical.

If the dog resembles a pit bull so closely that a unbiased, knowledgeable panel cannot tell AND the owner has no evidence that it is not a pit bull then yes they would be covered under this law and the owners will need to get a license.  Just as that same dog will be included under the bans of pit bulls.

whtsthfrequency

There is NO sure way to tell if you don't know or can't prove the parentage. It reminds me of the death penalty. If one innocent man is killed, it doesn't matter how many bad guys are killed. That means the system is flawed. If one person with a mix that looks like an ABPT and is actually not is subjected to fees/fines, or worse has their dog taken away because they do not have a license...then it's a flawed system.

All systems are flawed!!!!  While you seem opposed to taking any action unless it is a "perfect" law city after city is passing outright bans on these dogs.  No matter where you live right now, if you are a pit bull owner, you are one dog attack away from loosing your dogs permanently!  I am at least offering alternatives to that!  You on the other hand seem to want to continue denying that there is a problem with this breed and are opposinf any solutions.  That is the type of approach that strengthens those that want to rid us of all pit bulls. 

Mark

Chuffy

I think these are all lovely ideas - but how would they be enforced, how much would that cost and who would pay for it initially?  And what about the people who just don't bother to register or license the dog and keep him/her out of sight?  Are animal control going to search every house in case there's unregistered dogs there?  Do you not think that would be labour intesnive, time consuming, difficult and costly?  Not to mention intrusive?  Introducing more laws and more red tape that is not realistically enforceable seems like a waste of resources to me.

I think this law could be paid for by the registration fee's of the responsible owners who register their dog. It would stink to have to pay a $500 fee every year for my dogs but if it meant enforcing a law such as this I'd be all for it. In conjunction with mandatory spay/neuter laws for unproven, unregistered dogs I think ti would work great. As a responsible owner I already spay/nueter adn repfer to leave the APBT breeding to those who can ensure sound temperment and sticking to the breed standard. My favorite kennel, Matrix Kennels are producing amazing dogs who excel in agility and most have their CGC. The owner will NOT give any of his puppies to anyone he hasnt met personally but he is very easy to meet through local shows and sporting events so he isnt so far out of reach. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one for having my liberties taken away from me BUT if it is a alternative to BSL that outlaws my dogs I'd be all for it.

Responsible owners who could not afford to pay the fee could volunteer with the local aspca, HS or host fundraisers which would also get them involved in the community and spread awarness. I would hope the local community giving forth their efforts that peopel hiding or breeding their dogs would be exposed. In Texas there has been a huge serge in the community turning in BYB's and dog hoarders. The regular community is just as tired of these issues as we are.

Is it a ideal situation? Heck no! Is it worth it....oh YES!

I mean really at this point what alternative do we have? Preaching responsibel ownership to the majority of pit bull owners is laughable to say the least. Have you been on a pit bull forum? Even the peopel with good intentions have no clue about responsible ownership and trying to educate them is like speaking another language.

You on the other hand seem to want to continue denying that there is a problem with this breed and are opposinf any solutions.

A) I never said there wasn't a problem. I am fully aware of the issues of unethical breeders and owners who contribute to creating and maintaining aggressive dogs.

 
B) I suggested a solution. Cracking down on crime in general, therefore reducing the prevalence of criminals and people willing to break the law, rather than creating unenforceable legislation that could possibly have a non-pit-bull dog taken away from it's owner simply because it looks like one. 

You STILL haven't answered how AC will be able to find the dogs of these unethical people, who will hide them to avoid licensing fees, etc - the only thing I can think of is giving them full liberty to search everyone's house.

And what about the people who just don't bother to register or license the dog and keep him/her out of sight?  Are animal control going to search every house in case there's unregistered dogs there?  Do you not think that would be labour intesnive, time consuming, difficult and costly?  Not to mention intrusive?

Exactly. I still have not seen this point addressed. 

If the dog resembles a pit bull so closely that a unbiased, knowledgeable panel cannot tell AND the owner has no evidence that it is not a pit bull then yes they would be covered under this law and the owners will need to get a license

That is guilt due to simply lack of exculpatory evidence - not ANY proof of guilt. Any lawyer could tell you that. And labeling a guilty party based on that is unethical in itself. Does it happen occasionally in courts? Yes, I imagine it does, but that doesn't make it RIGHT. That's not even proof  of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"

mrv

Practically every city and state (or some combination there of) have leash laws, husbandry laws, vaccine laws (rabies) and licensing laws.  If you add dangerous dog laws, there is plenty on the books already.  There are however limited number of employees or systems to track the compliance with vaccine and licensing.  There are too few agents to to cruise and investigate complaints of loose or potentially dangerous dogs. 

Amen.  These laws make voters feel like they're "doing something about these dangerous dogs."  They're not.  They're doing something to responsible dog owners... something that rides a slippery slope to hell-world that PETA wants us all.  (How  many politicians in your area blindly support PETA, btw?) 

Make some laws about the results of dogs biting and attacking - and enforce those!!  (ie, "ban the deed, not the breed";) Enforce the laws that are already on the books which are most-often intended to prevent these kinds of issues - particularly leash/containment laws.  I've got some scary, and not-so-scary dogs wandering my neighborhood in a city which has laws including that every dog off property must be on a leash no more than 6' long (wonder when the cops will arrest the flexi-lead holders), and wear their registration tags on their collars at all times.  On property, the dogs have to be behind walls (ie, inside your house), or behind a fence.  Loose on your own property w/out a fence (visible or invisible) is illegal.  It made somebody feel good to enact a law aimed at keeping people from randomly tying dogs outside all day, or letting them roam loose.... but nobody enforces them until it's too late... 

As a side note, I am also annoyed by the poster who keeps stating their residence in NYC makes them more of a pit-identity expert than others in "more rural" areas.  Have you lived as an adult in other cities and towns around the country in the past 5-10 years?  I might venture to say that Louisiana had a bigger pit population per capita than NYC.  But that's just as much an opinion as yours. 

Marklf

Anyones dog can get loose!  That hardly makes them a "criminal"

The law is the law, whether it is a domestic animal at large or, in Dallas, breeding without a license. Hence, the responsibility on the owner, to see to it that the dog does not get loose. You seem to imply that laws, new and old should be enforced. Well, then, they must all be enforced. There might be debate on whether your loose dog makes you a criminal but I didn't say that, you did. Another law in Texas does make you a criminal. A new state law says that if your dog bites someone hard enough to require hospital attention, you, the owner, could be liable for criminal charges. You can always vote to have the law repealed.

whtsthfrequency

A) I never said there wasn't a problem. I am fully aware of the issues of unethical breeders and owners who contribute to creating and maintaining aggressive dogs.

Lets see so you admit there is a problem with the breed but think nothing should be done about it because the some bad guys may still get away with being bad guy?  Thats great logic, in the meantime the cities continue to pass bans of these dogs so no ALL pit bull owners either have to give up their dogs or they become bad guys!!!

whtsthfrequency

B) I suggested a solution. Cracking down on crime in general, therefore reducing the prevalence of criminals and people willing to break the law, rather than creating unenforceable legislation that could possibly have a non-pit-bull dog taken away from it's owner simply because it looks like one. 

OK now we are back to the pie in the sky solution!!!!  It is funny that you would oppose passing legistlation because you are claiming that it is "unenforceable" but your "solution is to "crack down on crime"!  Talk about being "unenforceable"!!!!  Being a stupid dog owner IS NOT A CRIME!!!  So just what are we going to crack down on??  Breeding dogs to make them more aggressive IS NOT A CRIME!  So how are we going to crack down on that?  Raising unsocialized pit bulls IS NOT A CRIME!!!  What do we do to crack down on that???  Encouraging your Pit Bull to be human aggressive IS NOT A CRIME (until the dog actually bites someone).  Darn near immposible to crack down on that!!  Having an untrained aggressive pit bull IS NOT A CRIME!!!  So how is it that "cracking down on crime" is going to do a darned thing?????

whtsthfrequency

You STILL haven't answered how AC will be able to find the dogs of these unethical people, who will hide them to avoid licensing fees, etc - the only thing I can think of is giving them full liberty to search everyone's house.

I have addressed that several times!!!  If there are people that keep their dogs locked up in their basements to avoid getting a license for them then so what????  Those dogs are NOT able to go out and eat their 90 year old neighbor!!!!  They will not be taking the scalp of their 15 month old neighbor!  They will not be able attack their neighbor as he mows his lawn.  They will not be attacking the police officer on the street!  Guess what just last week pit bulls did ALL of those attacks and many more!  Which is why city after city is banning the breed!  To the best of my knowledge none of the owners of those pit bulls would have effected by a "crack down on crime" because not of them were commiting a crime until their dogs got loose!!  AC will NOT have to go house to house searching for dogs!  Those dogs which are attacking their neighbors are outside of the house!!!!

whtsthfrequency

That is guilt due to simply lack of exculpatory evidence - not ANY proof of guilt. Any lawyer could tell you that. And labeling a guilty party based on that is unethical in itself. Does it happen occasionally in courts? Yes, I imagine it does, but that doesn't make it RIGHT. That's not even proof  of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"

What "guilt" are you talking about?  The cities have the authority to regulate and license the ownership of animals within its jurisdiction!  Being "regulated" is NOT the same thing as being found "guilty" of anything!!!!  Right now many cities have already passed bans on pit bulls and pit bull mixes!  If the city can pass a law that bans pit bulls and dogs that they determine to be pit bull mixes then it certainly can pass laws which are less restrictive on the pit bulls!  Under my proposal if you have a questionable dog and you can show that it is in fact not a pit bull or pit bull mix then you do not need to have a pit bull license for it but in most cities you still need to have dog "tags" for it.  If you cannot show that the "questionable" dog is not a pit then the dog will be evaluated by a unbiased, knowledgeable board.  If they detiermine that it is a pit bull or a pit mix, guess what..........You still are not "guilty" of anything!!!!!  All you need to do is get a license and comply with the licensing requirements! 

Mark

And a person with a lab mix that looks like a pit should not be required to pay a large fee to license their dog. Because it isn't a pit. Pure and simple.

It is funny that you would oppose passing legistlation because you are claiming that it is "unenforceable" but your "solution is to "crack down on crime"!

It is absolutely enforceable to reduce crime. Is it really so "pie in the sky" to, for example.....

Train more and better police officers for quicker response time and wider patrolling

Expand Animal Control with more manpower and funding to respond more quickly to situations warranting their protection.

Give officers better weapons and protective

Have better armed and trained civilians.

Have programs for at-risk kids and don't keep stripping funding from them.

Give people longer and harder sentencing and give parole out much more rarely.

All of these are very doable, and are not being done. If you say such things are pie in the sky, how is your proposal any better?  As I have said a million times before...people on the other side of the law are the people who are most likely to be raising human aggressive dogs. By reducing the prevalence of these people, we would reduce the prevalence of such dogs.

And, all of the people you speak of who own these aggressive dogs whom you say are not criminals....you think they're just going to up and pay the fee like good upstanding citizens? No, they'll try to hide the dogs - but before you blow up, read the following: and I quote

If there are people that keep their dogs locked up in their basements to avoid getting a license for them then so what????  Those dogs are NOT able to go out and eat their 90 year old neighbor!!!!

Because dogs never, ever escape from where they are contained, ever. Sorry, I keep forgetting that.

The issue is attacking the problem from the top down, instead of from the bottom up. For example, what good does it do going around busting kids for weed possession or small-time crackheads on the street? Nothing. As we have seen, our war on drugs has been a total failure.  You have to attack the problem where it originates - the dealers and the cartels. Same thing here - attack from the top - reduce crime.

It would be nice if you cut down on the myriad of exclamation points...they make things hard to read and rather annoying....

And you take my use of the word guilt too literally. I was speaking in an example of legal terms. I'll change it for you if it bothers you so much. It is simply unfair to force a person to pay a significant fee and now carry a reputation for having a dangerous dog, when no one can prove that the dog IS in fact dangerous, as well as not being able to prove that this dog is a type of dog that the law even applies to!

ron2

The law is the law, whether it is a domestic animal at large or, in Dallas, breeding without a license. Hence, the responsibility on the owner, to see to it that the dog does not get loose.

Of course the owner is responsible for their dog getting loose!  I never said anything that differed with that.

Mark

Lets see so you admit there is a problem with the breed but think nothing should be done about it 

And that's just insulting. I have suggested solutions and what I think should be done NUMEROUS times. I can spot a straw man arguement from a mile away, kid.