The Pine Bluff City Council"s unanimous decision to restrict ownership of pit bull dogs concerns dog owners who oppose laws targeting specific breeds.
The law, which sponsor 3rd Ward Alderman Derwood Smith said was modified to satisfy dog owners, requires dog owners to register them with the city and have them sterilized.
The proposed ordinance was scheduled to be read for the second time at last week"s City Council meeting, but aldermen suspended the rules and voted unanimously to adopt the ordinance.
Smith said the city received complaints of the dogs fighting in Pine Bluff.
"These dogs never bark. They just attack," Smith said.
"We do have a big problem with fighting here in Pine Bluff," Smith said.
Mayor Carl Redus Jr. said the City Council needed to take some action to restrict ownership of pit bull dogs.
DeLloyd Cleveland, director of Pine Bluff Animal Control, said the new law bans pit bull dogs from the city "if a dog doesn"t meet certain requirements."
"A pit bull dog owner must have liability insurance," Cleveland said. "If we don"t do something, we"re going to be getting another city"s dogs," he said.
Cleveland said Animal Control has been receiving as many as 30 calls a month from people complaining about pit bull dogs.
Cleveland said he had been out on numerous drug raids with Pine Bluff police where the dogs were apparently being used as watch dogs.
Prior to enactment of the ordinance, the city enforced a dangerous dog ordinance but Cleveland said "you had to wait for something to happen."
"Our pit bull dog situation is different from other cities," Cleveland said, explaining Pine Bluff has a problem with "an over abundance of breeding. They sell them for profit."
"It makes the owner more responsible," he said of the ordinance.
A dog owner must keep the dog in a pen and the only time it is permitted out on a leash is if someone who is 21 years of age or order is walking it. The city also requires a $100,000 liability insurance policy, he said.
John Segars Jr., a Pine Bluff dog trainer associated with the Southeast Arkansas Kennel Club, said he would prefer the council impose higher penalties for dangerous dogs than pass a breed specific ordinance.
"They are penalizing the responsible owners," he said.
Segars said similar legislation has been proposed during the administrations of two previous Pine Bluff mayors but withdrawn.
"Show dogs are the exception," he said. "I don"t like the breed specific law," he said. Segars said the liability insurance which is required is difficult to find and expensive to purchase.
"Any breed can create problems," Segars said. "I would question them outlawing a breed based on what someone else"s dog has done."
"It gives some relief to those who wanted to spend a little time showing their dog. I don"t like it. I would like to have it withdrawn," he said.
Heather Ford, a pit dog owner and an employee of The Pet Place in Pine Bluff, said some people use the dogs for fighting but she opposes "breed specific legislation."
"I don"t feel it"s a breed problem," she said.
Ford said city laws regulating dog ownership should be directed at people who own the dogs and not at the dogs.
"I think a dangerous dog ordinance is sufficient," she said. "The main problem with pit bull dogs is they are hyperactive. They need to be trained," she said.
bawanajim its what they're bred for, not unlike horses to race, dogs to race, dogs to hunt, bulls to be killed in bull fights, chickens to be eaten ........... its what they are
This law is absurd. As with everything else in America, pit bull breeders and their dogs will simply go underground, creating a thriving black market in the process. In addition, it does penalize lawful owners of non-violent dogs. The trainer (Segars) quoted in the article hit the nail on the head.
I agree on ANY law against vicious dogs. They are typically owned by people who aren't responsible enough to care for themselves or their families much less anyone else. They (vicious dogs) have become a "trailer trash status symbol" among the most irresponsible citizens in our communities. They just love to laugh it up when their dog barks, growls are charges after someone else and makes that person run or yell in fear. It's such a cheesy mindset, but what can you expect from a type of person with an IQ bordering on illiterate???
In the rest of the "real world" we have to suffer the consequences of our actions and when it comes time to buy homeowners insurance the first thing we are asked is, "Do you have any large dogs"? If it's not a docile breed like a labrador or collie then we are TATOOED or outright denied coverage. And justly so, the cases of vicious dog attacks have spiraled out of control within the last 2 decades. Insurance companies grew sick and tired of being raped in the courts over such lawsuits.
But such problems don't bother the types of owners/misfits I am talking about, because they typically are un-insured renters who more than likely don't have ANYKIND of insurance for anything they own. Like I said, their motives are COMPLETELY suspect and in most cases just outright WRONG. They do it for the "machoness" and because they haven't amounted to anything else in life, so By Gosh they can at least cause a scene in public with their "manly pet"...
THROW the book at em if you ask me,
RA
ps
THE most effective pitbull deterent I have seen so far is a 158grn hollowpoint fired from a .357 mag. THAT stops em everytime!!!
bawanajim its what they're bred for, not unlike horses to race, dogs to race, dogs to hunt, bulls to be killed in bull fights, chickens to be eaten ........... its what they are
I think it takes a sick sort to enjoy a bull fight also.Dog fighting is wrong in any educated society.
We as hunters should place a much higher standard on how animals are treated than the masses of Wal-mart meat eaters.
The wounding of an animal that you meant to kill should stay in your mind the same as the largest buck you ever shot.And showing any support for the knuckle draggers that find enjoyment from animels killing each other should shame you!
I agree on ANY law against vicious dogs. They are typically owned by people who aren't responsible enough to care for themselves or their families much less anyone else. They (vicious dogs) have become a "trailer trash status symbol" among the most irresponsible citizens in our communities. They just love to laugh it up when their dog barks, growls are charges after someone else and makes that person run or yell in fear. It's such a cheesy mindset, but what can you expect from a type of person with an IQ bordering on illiterate???
Typically or absolutely? Majority rule with minority rights means not penalizing a few because of the stupidity of many.
My cousin's best friend and his mom had theirhome invaded by three armed pieces of @#$%, and the only thing in betweenthem and those scumbags was his pit bull. The pit bull ran upstairs, and my friend and his mom were lying bound on the floor as the three robbers were arguing over who was going to shoot them when someone walked in the door and scared them all off. Yeah, some vicious dog that turned out to be.
Quote:
In the rest of the "real world" we have to suffer the consequences of our actions and when it comes time to buy homeowners insurance the first thing we are asked is, "Do you have any large dogs"? If it's not a docile breed like a labrador or collie then we are TATOOED or outright denied coverage. And justly so, the cases of vicious dog attacks have spiraled out of control within the last 2 decades. Insurance companies grew sick and tired of being raped in the courts over such lawsuits.
In the real world no one has any guarantee to safety. You have no right not to die in a car accident on the highway, just as you have no right not to be mauled to death by a dog. Not to mention that pit bulls do not have a monopoly on fatal attacks. Any large dog can be trained to kill.
Quote:
But such problems don't bother the types of owners/misfits I am talking about, because they typically are un-insured renters who more than likely don't have ANYKIND of insurance for anything they own. Like I said, their motives are COMPLETELY suspect and in most cases just outright WRONG. They do it for the "machoness" and because they haven't amounted to anything else in life, so By Gosh they can at least cause a scene in public with their "manly pet"...
Again, typically or absolutely? Don't paint everyone with the same brush....
Quote:
THROW the book at em if you ask me,
If they can't handle the responsibility of owning an attack dog, so be it.
Quote:
ps
THE most effective pitbull deterent I have seen so far is a 158grn hollowpoint fired from a .357 mag. THAT stops em everytime!!!
Shooting a running dog is difficult at best. A 20 guage with some buck shot would be a better bet, if you have a choice.
A6 I know what you mean and where you're comin from. But here in west TN (Memphis is the per capita bankruptcy capital of the nation!) we have a growing problem with the lowerclass and vicious dogs (particularly the pit bull) and their carefree owners. It used to be that most trailer trash (whites) and ghettoites (blacks) were DEATHLY afraid of vicious dogs and so there was really no problem. But for some reason, since about the late 80s, it has become VERY much fashionable for those same segments of the public to own, keep and train vicious dogs with of course the pit bull being their breed of choice or status symbol #1.
That wouldn't be a problem if those same segments were responsible, but they are NOT. They dont' care about society and their general view is "if I can cause any problem for 'da man' then I'm gonna do it". They know they can't get attention by just living a daily life. So like an unruly child, they desire to get attention by other means. Such "other means" typically mean mayhem and mischief, with of course keeping a vicious dog in the backseat of their car, being a favored "societal slap in the face".
We're gettin sick of it and such laws as this are a DIRECT affront too such ills. I can't for the life of me understand what a "legitimate" breeder would need with attack pit bulls, I can think the market is so small that it's hardly worth consideration anyway. Corporate America has just about dismissed guard dogs now as a direct result of liability anyway. If pitbullsare so great then why does law enforcement almost exclusively use German Shepards or Doberman Pinchers? (I can tell you why, those two breeds are very intelligent. A pitbull is essentially a 4 legged cannon with VERY powerful jaws and an extremely short fuse!)
If someone needs protection for their house that's what guns and burglar alarms are for!
RA
We as hunters should place a much higher standard on how animals are treated than the masses of Wal-mart meat eaters.
should place is the operative word. I've come to discover that hunters in general don't care anymore, and are no better at holding up what should be the moral values to hunting than anti-hunters
none the less, pit bulls LOVE to fight, its what they're bred for. You cannot take that out of them either, its engrained in their genetics, and they'll fight each other when they get the chance. Is it cruel and inhumane to bet on that ? Define inhumane and cruel - because it too isn't what its suppose to be anymore.
But yes, I personally feel dog fights should be illegal. Thats not what this law was about - its about protecting people from animals designed to kill, bred to be mean.
Quote:
My cousin's best friend and his mom had theirhome invaded by three armed pieces of @#$%, and the only thing in betweenthem and those scumbags was his pit bull. The pit bull ran upstairs, and my friend and his mom were lying bound on the floor as the three robbers were arguing over who was going to shoot them when someone walked in the door and scared them all off. Yeah, some vicious dog that turned out to be
.
That same dog has a high probability of biting a child's face off too or killing the little old lady walking by on the sidewalk. Abeagle doesn't have that probability, does it ?
That same dog has a high probability of biting a child's face off too or killing the little old lady walking by on the sidewalk. Abeagle doesn't have that probability, does it ?
Probability? As in not guaranteed?
My sister had her nose split in two by a toy poodle when she was a kindergardner. Any dog with teeth can be dangerous. That's why it's important to go after individuals who don't mind after their dogs, not all owners of one breed or another.
Pit Bull law - agree or no ?
