Banning Dogs or specific Dog Breeds

[greenintp]

This is an issue that really angers me because it is full of ignorance.
Ontario is Banning Pit Bulls.Way to go Micheal Bryant. He refers to them as "ticking time bombs".

What are your thoughts on this. Do you think Banning is the solution? How could the issues be better addressed? Speak up thinkers!

[Almaviva]

It's a really tough call, because I feel for dog owners, but preventing kids getting killed by dogs has to take priority over that. Muzzle laws might work, if you could enforce them. Nobody's going to get killed by a Daschund, and also we probably shouldn't allow someone to have a pet Siberian Tiger at a public park either, so there's a line somewhere.

[greenintp]

I believe there are too many kids getting seriously hurt and killed as well. If they must be banned as an emergency measure... fine. But referring to them in ways like "ticking time bomb"? Funny... I think that of all humans.
Wow... if you say both words many times quickly; "people & pit bull" they sound like the same thing. :devil:

I believe banning is a reflection of the ignorance and lack of accountability / responsibility in a society. Let exterminate that which we do not understand.

Unfortunately, the number of injuries & deaths to kids by dogs is miniscule, compared to what they suffer at the hands of their caregivers and parents. Humans impose years of abuse and suffering on their offspring.



It's a really tough call, because I feel for dog owners, but preventing kids getting killed by dogs has to take priority over that. Muzzle laws might work, if you could enforce them. Nobody's going to get killed by a Daschund, and also we probably shouldn't allow someone to have a pet Siberian Tiger at a public park either, so there's a line somewhere.

[Groty]

Ignorant Pit Bull owners should be banned WorldWide.

[greenintp]

I wish this could happen. :)

Ignorant Pit Bull owners should be banned WorldWide.

[Claverhouse]

Dangerous dogs, like dangerous people, should be kept under restraint, but to single out any breed is despicable. In GB they passed one of the most idiotic laws of recent times to control dogs. MPs ( and Congressmen ) are vermin who respond instantaneously to sentimental hysteria. One German Shepherd called Dino this week had his execution order lifted after three and a half years thanks solely to his owners spending 'tens of thousands of pounds' fighting the order in the courts. A woman was injured after getting inbetween fighting dogs.

Check:

Pitbull Home (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/home.html)
and it's page:
The Reality of Dog Fighting (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/brownstein.html)

The pictures are unbelievable.
If you wanted to have the scum who do this to dogs executed that would be fine, but leave the dogs out of it.

Also: from Germany, in English, there is, following their equally contemptible laws:

Dog Holocaust (http://www.angelfire.com/biz6/dogholocaust/)

A real holocaust caused by hysteria.




Claverhouse :ph34r:

[greenintp]

Why must we have so many stupid people in the world? :rant:
If a God created people... what the hell was he/she thinking?


Dangerous dogs, like dangerous people, should be kept under restraint, but to single out any breed is despicable. In GB they passed one of the most idiotic laws of recent times to control dogs. MPs ( and Congressmen ) are vermin who respond instantaneously to sentimental hysteria. One German Shepherd called Dino this week had his execution order lifted after three and a half years thanks solely to his owners spending 'tens of thousands of pounds' fighting the order in the courts. A woman was injured after getting inbetween fighting dogs.

Check:

Pitbull Home (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/home.html)
and it's page:
The Reality of Dog Fighting (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/brownstein.html)

The pictures are unbelievable.
If you wanted to have the scum who do this to dogs executed that would be fine, but leave the dogs out of it.

Also: from Germany, in English, there is, following their equally contemptible laws:

Dog Holocaust (http://www.angelfire.com/biz6/dogholocaust/)

A real holocaust caused by hysteria.




Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Almaviva]

I believe there are too many kids getting seriously hurt and killed as well. If they must be banned as an emergency measure... fine. But referring to them in ways like "ticking time bomb"? Funny... I think that of all humans.
Wow... if you say both words many times quickly; "people & pit bull" they sound like the same thing. :devil:


Agreed. "Ticking time bomb" is silly, and I'm sure more than 99% of pitt bulls are completely harmless.

I don't think you can say that a dog raised by a well-meaning person will never be dangerous though.



I believe banning is a reflection of the ignorance and lack of accountability / responsibility in a society. Let exterminate that which we do not understand.


So what are you going to do? If banning one breed of dog is going to save a measurable number of lives, I say let's do it. Some dog owners are inconvienced, but then their next dog could be a rottweiler or doberman or something if they want a mean looking dog. And nobody is going to make the case that civil liberties are damaged by not being able to take a grizzly bear into public.

Clearly there's a line, and I think, if it's true that banning pitt bulls will save lives in the long run, then to me it's clear we should draw the line on that side. (There's maybe a case that it won't save lives in the long run, but I don't think I buy it.)



Unfortunately, the number of injuries & deaths to kids by dogs is miniscule, compared to what they suffer at the hands of their caregivers and parents. Humans impose years of abuse and suffering on their offspring.


"People are suffering, and always will suffer and die unjustly" is a silly justification for not taking action to reduce suffering and death, if there is a clear solution.

[ohnoaninfp]

No they shouldn't be banned. The reason why they are so mean is because people fucked up the breed, by making it aggressive for dog fights. People should be taught how to raise pitbulls so they do not become aggressive.

[greenintp]

Dogs should not be considered completely harmless. They are a responsibility and a dependent.


"Ticking time bomb" is silly, and I'm sure more than 99% of pitt bulls are completely harmless.
I don't think you can say that a dog raised by a well-meaning person will never be dangerous though.


I believe banning is a reflection of the ignorance and lack of accountability / responsibility in a society. Let exterminate that which we do not understand.


There are other ways to control dogs, dog owners and sellers. Graduated permits, muzzles, spay& neuter, A hefty liability "surtax" on the sale and adoption fees of the breeds in question. Mandatory 1 year prison sentence for owners of dogs involved in an accidental mauling. 5 years if it is determined that the owner intentionally disregarded the safety of others. If the dog was used as a weapon... penalty should reflect that. The same as if they used a gun or knife.

I do consulting for dog owners. I deal mostly with dogs of extreme personalities. The biggest problems are mismatch in personalities and experience. The amount of dog owners who have no clue how to read their dogs, is alarming. Generally speaking, dogs have the reasoning ability of a 2 year old child. They require guidance and supervision. It is not all in how they are raised... that is a dangerous assumption.


So what are you going to do? If banning one breed of dog is going to save a measurable number of lives, I say let's do it. Some dog owners are inconvienced, but then their next dog could be a rottweiler or doberman or something if they want a mean looking dog. And nobody is going to make the case that civil liberties are damaged by not being able to take a grizzly bear into public.


If banning is a solution for saving lives... we have a lot more banning to do: violent criminals, cars, teenagers, unhealthy foods, alcohol, chemicals etc,...

Clearly there's a line, and I think, if it's true that banning pitt bulls will save lives in the long run, then to me it's clear we should draw the line on that side. (There's maybe a case that it won't save lives in the long run, but I don't think I buy it.)


Unfortunately, the number of injuries & deaths to kids by dogs is miniscule, compared to what they suffer at the hands of their caregivers and parents. Humans impose years of abuse and suffering on their offspring.


I am certainly not saying nothing should be done. I want action. I want it to actually make a difference. I want solutions that will prevent the problem from coming back in the form of another breed.


"People are suffering, and always will suffer and die unjustly" is a silly justification for not taking action to reduce suffering and death, if there is a clear solution .

[MacGuffin]

Generally speaking, dogs have the reasoning ability of a 2 year old child.

Ha! I always tell people owning a dog is like having a drunken two year old roaming around your house, putting everything in their mouth. They only understand about 15 words.

Don't ban breeds. It is the owner's fault - everytime.

[Birdsnest]

Pitbulls per say aren't at all to blame. My dad has had three very nice family dogs that were pit bulls, that I trusted even with my toddlers. Every one was tame and loving because it was raised in the family home. They only become mean when the owner raises them outdoors and leaves them alone.

So, its absurd to pass a law against a breed in general, when actually its the owners that are raising them to be mean that are to blame. But if they allow them to run out of a fence, that should be prosecutable, they shouldn't allow those dogs outside a secured area, and also shouldn't leave them outdoors.

Just my experience with them, is they can be very nice and very smart when treated nicely and when they think they are part of the family.

[Boozer]

If they ban pit bulls, then there will be some other breed that starts getting bred/trained for aggresiveness. It's the owners fault. I voted that it was a gov. cop out, but perhas some kind of permit could help ensure that they are not being used for fights (fat chance).

[greenintp]

Drunken 2 year old...
:rofl:


Generally speaking, dogs have the reasoning ability of a 2 year old child.

Ha! I always tell people owning a dog is like having a drunken two year old roaming around your house, putting everything in their mouth. They only understand about 15 words.

Don't ban breeds. It is the owner's fault - everytime.

[Claverhouse]

Why must we have so many stupid people in the world? :rant:


It's the Default Model.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[jimkopelli]

Stupidity should be a punishable offense... not too harsh, though, because we're all guilty occasionally... but it should fit the amount of dumb. Range it between a thwack upside the head to losing speaking priveliges to being neutered.

[Almaviva]

I believe banning is a reflection of the ignorance and lack of accountability / responsibility in a society. Let exterminate that which we do not understand.

There are other ways to control dogs, dog owners and sellers. Graduated permits, muzzles, spay& neuter, A hefty liability "surtax" on the sale and adoption fees of the breeds in question. Mandatory 1 year prison sentence for owners of dogs involved in an accidental mauling. 5 years if it is determined that the owner intentionally disregarded the safety of others. If the dog was used as a weapon... penalty should reflect that. The same as if they used a gun or knife.


Some of that sounds good to me. I don't know though, what you might get is people still getting killed, and some innocent people going to jail for it. (E.g. an inexperienced god-owner who got a particularly aggressive dog.) Having to take some tests and show experience before owning a dangerous dog might work though, similar to a Firearms Aquisition Certificate in Canada.



If banning is a solution for saving lives... we have a lot more banning to do: violent criminals, cars, teenagers, unhealthy foods, alcohol, chemicals etc,...


You have to deal with all this on a case-by-case basis. You can't just make a blanket statement "we don't ban this so we shouldn't ban this." You can play the other way too, which I did: "We *do* ban grizzly bears, so why not pit bulls?" We also ban automatic weapons, live handgrenades, and cocaine. Which, of course, does not change the fact that it's irrelevant to what we're discussing.

Anyway,
"violent criminals": Sure, ban violent crime, problem solved:)
"cars": True, many lives could be saved. It would be *serious* inconvenience, economically and for many other reasons. Does the inconvenience of not being allowed to own a car compare with the inconvenience of needing to choose another breed of dog aside from the Pit Bull? Of course not.
"teenagers": Clearly, we don't want this sort of menace in our society.
"unhealthy foods": I'm a big believer in the right to make stupid decisions, as long as it doesn't affect other people. So I have a problem with bans like this. I think it's different from the Pit Bull case because other people aren't involved.
"chemicals, Alcohol": Again, I think this is fine as long as other people aren't involved. (Clearly having harsh penalties for drunk driving is a good idea.)

[HairlessBluetick]

Most Pit Bulls are dog aggressive, not people aggressive. In fact Pit Bulls are considered one of the breeds with very steady temperaments -- mostly because they are not reactive to pain. Which makes them a lot safer than, say, most toy breeds, which are much more reactive. Unfortunately a bite from a pit is much more dangerous than a bite from a Chihuahua. Although that story about "locking jaws" and huge pounds per square inch ratios for jaws are myths. The average dog has a jaw strength of about 700 lbs per square inch, a toy dog about 400 lbs, a pit maybe 800-900. What a pit does have is what's called gameness. However, gameness in almost all situations doesn't apply to humans, and its the rare case indeed that a pit (or any game dog) would choose to attack a human, even a pit bred for fighting.

Then there's the problem of enforcement. Most people can't enforce this law --even people who work for shelters, dog catchers, etc. have little or no training in breed identification... one study in particular tested cops on what a "pit bull" was -- they ID'd all the breeds presented as pit bulls -- including a Great Dane and a Boston Terrier.)

And if you ban pit bulls, after that? What about Presa Canarios? Dogos? Cane Corsos? -- all being hailed as the "new, exotic pit bull" and AT LEAST two or three times the size. Then of course there's Rottweilers, Am Staffs, etc. And plenty others. Not to mention mixed breeds -- how do you ban a mixed breed? Lets say someone breeds a Mastiff x Pit x Corso, Neapolitan, or what have you (these mixes are sometimes called "Bandogges" ) -- can you ban that? Or do you just, as common sense dictates, judge the DEED, not the breed?

Breed bans are SO stupid.

[Tranzors]

I don't think banning dogs should be an issue. There should be a ban on stupid people having sex though. They're overpopulating the world, with more idiots.

[SheepDog]

1) All pit bulls are not aggressive.
2) All aggressive dogs are not pit bulls.

Doesn't this, by itself, illustrate how stupid banning a breed is?

[Avengardh]

I don't know enough to answer this, but in my opinion this is just like censoring tv.

I think they have a better care of dogs in this country than their own children.
Most of the time I just think that such things occur because of the ignorance of the owners, I think someone already said that though, so I don't see why you should ban a specific breed.

Next on the list is white cats, cause, their fur is just so...white and dangerous.

Pffft.