There's not much time left... http://www.change.org/ideas/view/ban_breed...fic_legislation
Dog lovers, unite!
Dog lovers, unite!
Last edited by a moderator:
"Ideas for Change" - Ban Breed Specific Legislation
- Thread starter mininik
- Start date
Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:
Matt73
Well-Known Member
I'm a major dog/animal lover and I'm all for breed specific legislation. Banning certain breeds does not mean dogs will disappear. All dogs (apart from wolves, coyotes, etc.) are man-made. Dogs that were made to be vicious, if they present a problem, should be phased out. I really don't see a problem with that. It doesn't mean that they should all be put down; but to not breed anymore is not a cruel thing. Oh lord. I think I've just opened a can of squiggly worms.
Edited to add that, for instance: I'm a major Berner lover. If that breed, for whatever reason, developed problems whereby the majority died a horrible death at 3 or so years of age. Hyopthetically speaking, and they could not find a cure. I'd be all for them "phasing the breed out of existence".
Edited to add that, for instance: I'm a major Berner lover. If that breed, for whatever reason, developed problems whereby the majority died a horrible death at 3 or so years of age. Hyopthetically speaking, and they could not find a cure. I'd be all for them "phasing the breed out of existence".
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you need to get your facts straight, Matt:
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com
http://www.fataldogattacks.com/
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/myths.cfm
DOGS BITE: BUT BALLOONS AND SLIPPERS ARE MORE DANGEROUS
by Janis Bradley
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com
http://www.fataldogattacks.com/
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/myths.cfm
DOGS BITE: BUT BALLOONS AND SLIPPERS ARE MORE DANGEROUS
by Janis Bradley
Last edited by a moderator:
JourneysEnd
Well-Known Member
How many people are killed by other breeds of dogs ?
Is there any info ?
Is there any info ?
Reijel's Mom
Well-Known Member
I registered and will soon be voting to ban breed specific legislation, thanks for the link. Pits always come to mind of course, and I've just met far too many pits that I LOVE to feel they should be banned. However, I do wish there was some way we could only allow RESPONSIBLE breeders to breed/sell them (true for all animals, I would say). There are an excess of pits in my area that end up in the shelter I volunteer at, and it's hard to find homes qualified to become owners of pit bulls. So the pits stay with us quite some time. We've had some of them for over a year before they've gotten adopted, and that's just no life for a dog.
Minik, I agree with many of the opinions you've expressed on this board, you are clearly passionate about what you believe. But I think there are probably less abrasive ways of "saying" things on here that might not be quite so offensive. I think people listen/learn more when their hackles aren't raised.
Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks
in the United States between 1979 and 1998
Jeffrey J. Sacks, MD, MPH; Leslie Sinclair, DVM; Julie Gilchrist, MD;
Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM; Randall Lockwood, PhD
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf
Objective—To summarize breeds of dogs involved in
fatal human attacks during a 20-year period and to
assess policy implications.
Animals—Dogs for which breed was reported involved
in attacks on humans between 1979 and 1998 that
resulted in human dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF).
Procedure—Data for human DBRF identified previously
for the period of 1979 through 1996 were combined
with human DBRF newly identified for 1997
and 1998. Human DBRF were identified by searching
news accounts and by use of The Humane Society of
the United States’ registry databank.
Results—During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people
died of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997 and 9 in 1998). At
least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238
human DBRF during the past 20 years. Pit bull-type
dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of
these deaths. Of 227 reports with relevant data, 55
(24%) human deaths involved unrestrained dogs off
their owners’ property, 133 (58%) involved unrestrained
dogs on their owners’ property, 38 (17%) involved
restrained dogs on their owners’ property, and 1 (< 1%)
involved a restrained dog off its owner’s property.
Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans
appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type
dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and
cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties
inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty,
enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional
and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent
a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and,
therefore, should not be the primary factor driving
public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical
alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and
hold promise for prevention of dog bites. (J Am Vet
Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840)
in the United States between 1979 and 1998
Jeffrey J. Sacks, MD, MPH; Leslie Sinclair, DVM; Julie Gilchrist, MD;
Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM; Randall Lockwood, PhD
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf
Objective—To summarize breeds of dogs involved in
fatal human attacks during a 20-year period and to
assess policy implications.
Animals—Dogs for which breed was reported involved
in attacks on humans between 1979 and 1998 that
resulted in human dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF).
Procedure—Data for human DBRF identified previously
for the period of 1979 through 1996 were combined
with human DBRF newly identified for 1997
and 1998. Human DBRF were identified by searching
news accounts and by use of The Humane Society of
the United States’ registry databank.
Results—During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people
died of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997 and 9 in 1998). At
least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238
human DBRF during the past 20 years. Pit bull-type
dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of
these deaths. Of 227 reports with relevant data, 55
(24%) human deaths involved unrestrained dogs off
their owners’ property, 133 (58%) involved unrestrained
dogs on their owners’ property, 38 (17%) involved
restrained dogs on their owners’ property, and 1 (< 1%)
involved a restrained dog off its owner’s property.
Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans
appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type
dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and
cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties
inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty,
enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional
and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent
a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and,
therefore, should not be the primary factor driving
public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical
alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and
hold promise for prevention of dog bites. (J Am Vet
Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840)
I think that taking complete and personal responsibility for ones actions or the actions of one "property" in this case is a far better way to deal with the issue. In which case all the laws necessary are already in place. It makes no sense to punish Bobby for what Billy did. Punish Bobby instead
Also these types of things never remain static in law, but grow more onerous with time.
Bb
Canine Carriages
Also these types of things never remain static in law, but grow more onerous with time.
Bb
Canine Carriages
Keri
Well-Known Member
I'm for it. Just over New years, a couple pit bulls were shot. They got out of their backyard (which wasn't all that super anyways), proceeded to chase a guy into his truck. That afternoon, a pregnant woman and her two small kids were leaving their house. The dogs took off charging after them. A passerby saw it and got out and shot the dogs. Thank goodness becuase that could've been very deadly! And then the owner proceeds to say they were just running up to play (and that she didn't know they were out even though it had been all day!). And the owner thinks she's going to sue the guy who shot them. He was in his right. Sorry, but this is just one of many attacks that happen all the time with pit bulls. People may not die, but they may be disfigured and ruined with medical bills becuase of some owner's ignorance towards these dogs. Granted it may happen with other breeds, but IMO not as common. They are bred to fight. Michael Vicks is a prime example of using these dogs for what they were bred for. Sorry, but even if they don't ban them, there needs to be better regulations on them. They are as bad as some idiot owning a fire arm.
LowriseMinis
Well-Known Member
Properly bred pitbulls should not, and do not show human aggression. Back in the day when they were more widely used for fighting, people would stand IN THE RING with them and need to be able to grab them to break up the fight. If any of these dogs turned and bit their handler, they didn't stay around long.
Unfortunately, people have been breeding them for the wrong reasons.
But let's say we have a nationwide ban on pitbulls. Do you think the dangerous, stupid people who are already breaking the law by fighting these dogs are going to care if the dogs they are using are illegal? No. Do you think the ones breeding and training them to be people aggressive to guard their drughouses are going to care if their dogs are illegal? No.
And if pits ever become inaccessible, these people will latch onto another breed. So first we'll ban pits and anything that looks anything close to a pit-which takes out breeds like Boxers and a great many terrier mixes. Then these people move on to Dobermans. Ban those too. Then Rottweilers. Then German Shepherds. Shar-Peis. Mastiffs, assuming the pit bull ban didn't take them out. Then Dalmatians, huskies, Labs...
Unfortunately, people have been breeding them for the wrong reasons.
But let's say we have a nationwide ban on pitbulls. Do you think the dangerous, stupid people who are already breaking the law by fighting these dogs are going to care if the dogs they are using are illegal? No. Do you think the ones breeding and training them to be people aggressive to guard their drughouses are going to care if their dogs are illegal? No.
And if pits ever become inaccessible, these people will latch onto another breed. So first we'll ban pits and anything that looks anything close to a pit-which takes out breeds like Boxers and a great many terrier mixes. Then these people move on to Dobermans. Ban those too. Then Rottweilers. Then German Shepherds. Shar-Peis. Mastiffs, assuming the pit bull ban didn't take them out. Then Dalmatians, huskies, Labs...
You forgot to ad the statistic about doctors. Do you want to ban them, too?
Accidental deaths caused by Physicians
per year are 120,000
Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of
Health and Human Services.
Accidental deaths caused by Physicians
per year are 120,000
Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of
Health and Human Services.
Shari
Well-Known Member
Personally I am all for it. There have been a large number of pitt bull attacks in the Portland area. Untill people start being responible and not breeding pitts as agressive as they are and start proper training..something has to be done.
Is not right so many people have died or were hurt by pitt bulls... doesn't matter the reason. Until one has been attacked by a dog for no reason, having themselves or a child hurt......let me tell you... if a Pitt killed or hurt your child, Grandmother or who ever... ones opinion would change.
Is not right so many people have died or were hurt by pitt bulls... doesn't matter the reason. Until one has been attacked by a dog for no reason, having themselves or a child hurt......let me tell you... if a Pitt killed or hurt your child, Grandmother or who ever... ones opinion would change.
LowriseMinis
Well-Known Member
Mine wouldn't.
Sonya
Well-Known Member
There are certain breeds that do come to my mind that are more aggressive than others and no matter the training and/or upbringing of that animal, that aggression will always be there....but....where will they (being fed/state/local govt) stop? First may be pitbulls, next thing you know they'll be banning golden retrievers. Just not good to give govt that kind of power IMO. There are breeds that I don't care for and personally wouldn't mind seeing phased out, but again...where will they stop? You give them that power and next thing you know they'll be busting down your door and taking your family pet because it may have a specific breed in it.
nysart8902
Well-Known Member
I'm sickened by this legislation. What's next? Allowing them to say what dogs we can have in certain areas is wrong! My own dog is part Labrador Retriever/Pit Bull and he is the most lovable dog. When we got him I looked up his breeds, and most sites say that Pit Bulls are great around kids. Duke, our dog, loves kids. Our neighbor's come over sometimes when he's out and he just sits/lays there to be petted, he never jumps up on them (which he does to most people).
Any dog not trained properly will attack if it feels threatened, so we shouldn't be banning specific breeds.
Any dog not trained properly will attack if it feels threatened, so we shouldn't be banning specific breeds.
