Should we ban some breeds?

[APBTLove]

The list of 'formidable' breeds is endless... And the complete mutts, heinz 57's? they can look pretty intimidating and be strong as a bull... Everything from Cattle dogs to danes to beagles. Yes, beagles. Friend of mine's beagle very nearly killed their westie, imagine if it was a small child, not a tough breed of dog meant for tenacity he was after?



One of the few dogs that have made me truly uneasy was a pair of labs, Sarge and Abby, I think - they left an impression - pure bred chocolate labs. They were so vicious to strangers I pulled mace out any time I passed their home, because they would go insane, even biting the fencing 20' away form me out of frustration at not being able to get at me. Luckily the day they got out I had my own pair of dogs, my GSDs... And those dogs curred out as soon as my two got a hold on them, their owner had to come get them because they wouldn't let us walk, they were circling and darting in every now and then. This was a wealthy man and his family... not some lowly criminal.


I agree that people with animal cruelty charges shouldn't be allowed to own animals, but that has nothing to do with BSL. Other criminal things, even human on human violence, should not come into play with dogs. One of my family members has a record, mostly vehicle charges, but others including taking it too far when he got into fights with other people... he rents a home, he's not very responsible when it comes to his money or other things.. He owns two dogs himself and a leopard gecko and I wouldn't put them in anyone else's home. He has them contained, exercised, fed and medically cared for, not to mention the abundance of training and love he has in them.

You have murders in jail who train and care for animals so they can be placed. I almost adopted a GSD pup from one such place.


And as for what makes a person responsible? I can say that people who are irresponsible when it comes to keeping their car in good shape or paying bills, or keeping a tidy place are not necessarily going to treat a life the same. The old homeless man I spoke of earlier is a much better dog owner than the guy down the road with three cars, his own home, extra cash, no record and two dogs.


I have a friend who lives in one of those communities that do not allow fencing, pools, or weeds in your garden lol and she would be not be able to build a kennel as suggested, nor a tie-out. She's have to walk her dog out for bathroom needs or exercise... She rents the home and is Section 8. Yet she does her part and cares for her family and pets well.

Income, record, location... These do not really come into play when it comes to owning an animal. I know that my animals come first, I've gone hungry days to feed them, my animals are never loose, never had AC come to my home because of a complaint, I live next to the projects and in a crapy neighborhood. I probably would not meet the standards for some dog-ownership-control project...


Here is a list of some dogs... who, by size alone can be dangerous, but also because of what work they are bred for, should be included as pit bull dogs, German Shepherds, and rotties would be for an ownership control idea..

American Bully

Akita

Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog

Anatolian Shepherd

Caucasian Mountain Dog

Dogue de Bordeaux

Great Dane

Great Pyrenees

Greater Swiss Mountian Dog

Irish Wolfhound

Kuvasz

English Mastiff

Neopolitian Mastiff

Newfoundland

Saint Bernard

Scottish Deerhound

Tibetan Mastiff

American Staffordshire Terrier

American Bulldog

American Water Spaniel

Australian Cattle Dog

Basset Hound

Bearded Collie

Border Collie

Brittany Spaniel

Bulldogs(there are many english bulldog like breeds)

Old English Bulldog

Canaan Dog

Chinese Shar-Pei

Chow Chow


English Springer Spaniel

Field Spaniel

Harrier

Keeshond

Kerry Blue Terrier

Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever

Pharoah Hound

Polish Lowland Sheepdog

Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier

Standard Poodle

Standard Schnauzer

Sussex Spaniel

Welsh Springer Spaniel

Afghan Hound

Airedale Terrier

Alaskan Malamute

American Foxhound

American Pit Bull Terrier

Australian Shepherd

Beauceron

Belgian Malanois

Belgian Sheepdog

Belgian Tervuren

Bernese Mountain Dog

Black and Tan Coonhound

Black Russian Terrier

Bloodhound

Borzoi

Bouvier des Flandres

Boxer

Briard

Bullmastiff

Bull Terrier

Cane Corso

Chesapeake Bay Retriever

Collie

Curly Coated Retriever

Dalmation

Doberman

English Foxhound

English Setter

Flat Coated Retriever

German Shepherd

German Shorthaired Pointer

German Wirehaired Pointer

Giant Schnauzer

Golden Retriever

Gordon Setter

Greyhound

Ibizian Hound

Irish Setter

Irish Water Spaniel

Komondor

Labrador Retriever

Leonberger

Old English Sheepdog

Otterhound

Pointer
Plott Hound

Portuguese Water Dog

Redbone Coonhound

Rhodesian Ridgeback

Rottweiler

Saluki

Samoyed

Siberian Husky

Spinone Italiano

Tosa Inu

Vizsla

Weimaraner

Wirehaired Pointing Griffon


There are many more dog breeds who are big, tenacious, tough, or intimidating that I do not have time to list... If you say guardian, fighting, hunting, or large breeds should be regulated...

[Jessiewessie99]

Originally Posted by APBTLove

The list of 'formidable' breeds is endless... And the complete mutts, heinz 57's? they can look pretty intimidating and be strong as a bull... Everything from Cattle dogs to danes to beagles. Yes, beagles. Friend of mine's beagle very nearly killed their westie, imagine if it was a small child, not a tough breed of dog meant for tenacity he was after?



One of the few dogs that have made me truly uneasy was a pair of labs, Sarge and Abby, I think - they left an impression - pure bred chocolate labs. They were so vicious to strangers I pulled mace out any time I passed their home, because they would go insane, even biting the fencing 20' away form me out of frustration at not being able to get at me. Luckily the day they got out I had my own pair of dogs, my GSDs... And those dogs curred out as soon as my two got a hold on them, their owner had to come get them because they wouldn't let us walk, they were circling and darting in every now and then. This was a wealthy man and his family... not some lowly criminal.


I agree that people with animal cruelty charges shouldn't be allowed to own animals, but that has nothing to do with BSL. Other criminal things, even human on human violence, should not come into play with dogs. One of my family members has a record, mostly vehicle charges, but others including taking it too far when he got into fights with other people... he rents a home, he's not very responsible when it comes to his money or other things.. He owns two dogs himself and a leopard gecko and I wouldn't put them in anyone else's home. He has them contained, exercised, fed and medically cared for, not to mention the abundance of training and love he has in them.

You have murders in jail who train and care for animals so they can be placed. I almost adopted a GSD pup from one such place.


And as for what makes a person responsible? I can say that people who are irresponsible when it comes to keeping their car in good shape or paying bills, or keeping a tidy place are not necessarily going to treat a life the same. The old homeless man I spoke of earlier is a much better dog owner than the guy down the road with three cars, his own home, extra cash, no record and two dogs.


I have a friend who lives in one of those communities that do not allow fencing, pools, or weeds in your garden lol and she would be not be able to build a kennel as suggested, nor a tie-out. She's have to walk her dog out for bathroom needs or exercise... She rents the home and is Section 8. Yet she does her part and cares for her family and pets well.

Income, record, location... These do not really come into play when it comes to owning an animal. I know that my animals come first, I've gone hungry days to feed them, my animals are never loose, never had AC come to my home because of a complaint, I live next to the projects and in a crapy neighborhood. I probably would not meet the standards for some dog-ownership-control project...


Here is a list of some dogs... who, by size alone can be dangerous, but also because of what work they are bred for, should be included as pit bull dogs, German Shepherds, and rotties would be for an ownership control idea..

American Bully

Akita

Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog

Anatolian Shepherd

Caucasian Mountain Dog

Dogue de Bordeaux

Great Dane

Great Pyrenees

Greater Swiss Mountian Dog

Irish Wolfhound

Kuvasz

English Mastiff

Neopolitian Mastiff

Newfoundland

Saint Bernard

Scottish Deerhound

Tibetan Mastiff

American Staffordshire Terrier

American Bulldog

American Water Spaniel

Australian Cattle Dog

Basset Hound

Bearded Collie

Border Collie

Brittany Spaniel

Bulldogs(there are many english bulldog like breeds)

Old English Bulldog

Canaan Dog

Chinese Shar-Pei

Chow Chow


English Springer Spaniel

Field Spaniel

Harrier

Keeshond

Kerry Blue Terrier

Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever

Pharoah Hound

Polish Lowland Sheepdog

Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier

Standard Poodle

Standard Schnauzer

Sussex Spaniel

Welsh Springer Spaniel

Afghan Hound

Airedale Terrier

Alaskan Malamute

American Foxhound

American Pit Bull Terrier

Australian Shepherd

Beauceron

Belgian Malanois

Belgian Sheepdog

Belgian Tervuren

Bernese Mountain Dog

Black and Tan Coonhound

Black Russian Terrier

Bloodhound

Borzoi

Bouvier des Flandres

Boxer

Briard

Bullmastiff

Bull Terrier

Cane Corso

Chesapeake Bay Retriever

Collie

Curly Coated Retriever

Dalmation

Doberman

English Foxhound

English Setter

Flat Coated Retriever

German Shepherd

German Shorthaired Pointer

German Wirehaired Pointer

Giant Schnauzer

Golden Retriever

Gordon Setter

Greyhound

Ibizian Hound

Irish Setter

Irish Water Spaniel

Komondor

Labrador Retriever

Leonberger

Old English Sheepdog

Otterhound

Pointer
Plott Hound

Portuguese Water Dog

Redbone Coonhound

Rhodesian Ridgeback

Rottweiler

Saluki

Samoyed

Siberian Husky

Spinone Italiano

Tosa Inu

Vizsla

Weimaraner

Wirehaired Pointing Griffon


There are many more dog breeds who are big, tenacious, tough, or intimidating that I do not have time to list... If you say guardian, fighting, hunting, or large breeds should be regulated...

[selzer]

Originally Posted by Dainerra

what about people who own their home, but live in a community that doesn't allow fencing? they wouldn't be able to build a kennel like you describe, even though they meet the other "criteria" that you put forth?

sorry, but money doesn't make someone a good dog owner! people who are wealthy are just as likely to abandon their dog as anyone else. they are just as likely to be irresponsible, though they may have better lawyers to keep them out of trouble.

the problem with making a strict licensing program is that the people most likely to be irresponsible are also most likely to not bother getting licensed anyway. Also, who gets to decide what is appropriate? The government already has laws on animal welfare, which most of us consider too lenient. With the strong breed bias that the public has, they are likely to go to the opposite extreme. They won't outright ban "formidable" breeds, but could make the requirements so strict that no one can afford to adhere to them.

Dainerra, most people is communities that ban fencing have basements and could put an appropriate kennel in their basement for those times when the dog is not with the owner.

Or the kennel can be inside the garage.

Or the dog can be properly crated in the house and left outside on lead.

What the general public does not want are dogs pushing through a cheap fence and getting to a dog or people walking down the street minding their own business. They also do not want children to be able to unlatch the gate and wonder in.

[selzer]

Ok,

Here is a scenario.

I am unemployed and my cobra benefits have run out and I have NO health insurance.

If I am walking down the street with my puppy, and someone's formidable dog breaks through their back yard fencing to accost me and my puppy, and I step in front of my puppy and call for the owners. The dog charges and sinks it teeth into my leg and wrestles back and forth with it tearing at my tendons.

After several minutes three kids come out of the house and stick their fingers in their mouths watching the dog EAT my leg. Finally their dad comes out yelling and is able to separate me from the dog. I call 911 and am taken to the ER.

The dog has no reports of violence before.

I need surgery on my leg and lengthy therapy and skin grafts to make it heal.

Who should pay the medical bills?

The family is in section 8 housing and has no renter's insurance that covers the dog.
They have nothing to go after. Who will pay.

The landlord has a strict rule against them owning any dog, and did not know that the dog existed.

Who should pay?

The landlord is up to his ears in debt and if he must he will just go bankrupt and my medical bills for this will not be paid even if I hire an attorney and go after him.

Who will end up paying?

Since I do not have the money, and they cannot take my house for medical bills -- not worth it anyhow as the mortgage is upside down, they will put a lean on it, and the hospital will write it off as a bad debt. Why is that ok?

Who in the end pays for this?

Society pays.

Society passes laws to prevent these scenarios because they should not have to foot the bill.

If people have to own a home or have an insurance policy, a liability policy covering the dogs, then people who own these dogs will be paying insurance so that IF one of them causes such a problem there is money to cover the costs.

Why did I step in front of my puppy? Because while society will pay, the ER will treat me with or without insurance. The same is not true for my puppy. If the dog tears into my puppy and I do not have the money for the veterinary care and surgeries the pup may require, it is tough luck for me and my pup. Why is THAT ok???

I am frankly tired of hearing about people who have no means to pay for the damages of their dogs owning these dogs and allowing them to run amok. Lots of people are. Banning the breeds is easy. It does not solve anything, but when one is found running at large, it is contained and euthanized -- oh well. If they are banned. When people own a banned breed and it attacks, they are criminally negligent and held with higher penalties.

I would rather see restrictions put on ownership, than breed bans.

BTW, there are laws about fencing around pools. Pools and dogs are considered an attractive nuisance. Children are attracted to them. It is up to the homeowner to ensure that children cannot get themselves injured or killed by pools or dogs on your property.

[Gwenhwyfair]

Toughen up fines and punishments for owners who have dogs which have attacked, no matter the breed.

In the meantime carry this on your walks:

Amazon

Amazon

[APBTLove]

Originally Posted by selzer

Ok,

Here is a scenario.

I am unemployed and my cobra benefits have run out and I have NO health insurance.

If I am walking down the street with my puppy, and someone's formidable dog breaks through their back yard fencing to accost me and my puppy, and I step in front of my puppy and call for the owners. The dog charges and sinks it teeth into my leg and wrestles back and forth with it tearing at my tendons.

After several minutes three kids come out of the house and stick their fingers in their mouths watching the dog EAT my leg. Finally their dad comes out yelling and is able to separate me from the dog. I call 911 and am taken to the ER.

The dog has no reports of violence before.

I need surgery on my leg and lengthy therapy and skin grafts to make it heal.

Who should pay the medical bills?
The owners should.
The family is in section 8 housing and has no renter's insurance that covers the dog.
They have nothing to go after. Who will pay.

The landlord has a strict rule against them owning any dog, and did not know that the dog existed.

Who should pay?

The landlord is up to his ears in debt and if he must he will just go bankrupt and my medical bills for this will not be paid even if I hire an attorney and go after him.

Who will end up paying?
Well, in that scenario you will.
Since I do not have the money, and they cannot take my house for medical bills -- not worth it anyhow as the mortgage is upside down, they will put a lean on it, and the hospital will write it off as a bad debt. Why is that ok?
It's not, but it's life.
Who in the end pays for this?
You would, and the dog. I firmly believe a mauling deserves some euthasol, not a fine like a bite would.
Society pays.

Society passes laws to prevent these scenarios because they should not have to foot the bill.
If the owners are irresponsible enough to let their vicious dog get out and hurt someone, what makes you think they'd abide by a dog law?
If people have to own a home or have an insurance policy, a liability policy covering the dogs, then people who own these dogs will be paying insurance so that IF one of them causes such a problem there is money to cover the costs.
Money should not come into the equation of tearing families apart. Money, to me and other s who would suffer from BSL, is trivial when compared to a dead loved one.
Why did I step in front of my puppy? Because while society will pay, the ER will treat me with or without insurance. The same is not true for my puppy. If the dog tears into my puppy and I do not have the money for the veterinary care and surgeries the pup may require, it is tough luck for me and my pup. Why is THAT ok???
Well, I suppose people hold human life above animals, though I'd like to see them treat emergency situations with animals the same as humans.

I am frankly tired of hearing about people who have no means to pay for the damages of their dogs owning these dogs and allowing them to run amok. Lots of people are. Banning the breeds is easy. It does not solve anything, but when one is found running at large, it is contained and euthanized -- oh well. If they are banned. When people own a banned breed and it attacks, they are criminally negligent and held with higher penalties.
But, even with a ban/restrictions ect... How are the poor who own the breeds anyway going to pay? Because people will always own dogs of certain breeds illegally. I cannot watch an Episode of "Miami Animal Police" without seeing them pick up a pit bull type who's being owned illegally, and there's been a BAN for a while there now. You can pass a law saying lower class poor folk can't own big dogs, it does not mean they'll obey. And if they're dog attacks, what, they'll get fined and charged with the medical bills? Having no insurance for this type of thing will be a problem with or without a restriction. the section 8 people one street over are not allowed to have pets, but they have five bulldogs and breed them in there, just because they aren't allowed to doesn't mean they won't do it.
I would rather see restrictions put on ownership, than breed bans.

BTW, there are laws about fencing around pools. Pools and dogs are considered an attractive nuisance. Children are attracted to them. It is up to the homeowner to ensure that children cannot get themselves injured or killed by pools or dogs on your property.

Yep, we have a pool/fence law here... Fence must be a certain height to have a decent-sized pool... While the kid would be trespassing, and the parents obviously negligent, I don't have a problem with restricting pools lol They're inanimate and it won't destroy a family to have their pool dragged away by strangers because they were too poor to buy proper things to own their pool...

[Dainerra]

ok, using Selzer's scenario ----

the person has already violated the terms of the lease, endangered their children (another law), allowed a dog to roam at large (against the law in most areas), allowed a dog to assault a person (against the law of common sense if nothing else), the list goes on and on.
What makes you think that, just because there is now a law that says you must do A,B, and C to own this dog, that they would say "OOOPS, better not own a dog" Irresponsible people will be irresponsible no matter what.

Even if the person had a kennel as you specified, how do you guarantee they will use it? That at some point of some day they will decide it's easier to just open the door to let their dog pee than to walk them out to the kennel? You can't, because you CAN NOT legislate responsibility and common sense.

[jan & jim]

First off I have to say that I believe I understand the point that Selzer is trying to make. I would also like to state that I do not believe in breed banning. However, I do believe that there is a problem out there with certain breeds due to irresponsible owners. When the public's perception is that certain breeds are a health hazard, lawmakers are going to respond.

My question is this: If our beloved GSDs were the ones in the same position as the so-called "Bully Breeds" are now, what would you be doing to mount an effective defense against an anti-GSD law? What alternatives would you offer the local or state politicians to address the problem?
Jim

[Jessiewessie99]

I have met some people who are not so rich or poor who treat their dogs alot better than some rich upper class people do. I am not saying all poor or middle class people are like that, and that all rich upper class people are like that, its something I noticed.

[Dainerra]

I'm not sure that there IS an alternative to fear mongering. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The media/politicians/public view a certain breed as mean. Irresponsible people looking for a "mean" dog buy that breed. The dog is mistreated and mishandled and bites someone. The media screams "another attack" from the roof top.

On a grassroots level, we can band together and show what our individual dogs are. We can push for enforcement of existing leash laws and animal cruelty laws. But I don't know if that is enough to overcome hysteria. Politicians generally don't care if BSL and similar measures actually work. They want to be seen as doing SOMETHING, even if the outcome is the opposite of what they want to accomplish. By the time people realize that, the politician will already be re-elected and moved on to the newest "hot button" issue.

So, I guess local one-on-one education, being an active voice in your local council, pushing for enforcement of existing laws, etc