Question about all this PitBull crud.

burniegoeasily · 01-15-2007, 11:12 AM

What is it that people here want. I keep hearing, "I dont want to ban the animals". Which would be impossible. Bann a variation of a species, you would have to ban all dogs, each can be genetically manipulated to develope many unsavory traits with a little time. So, what is it you all propose happen?

petasux · 01-15-2007, 11:20 AM

I dont want to hear anything personally, but when people deny the breeds aggression to the point of comparing them to beagles I believe its an open topic for debate.At this point I think the topics about run its coarse however and wont be contributing more on it

kevin1 · 01-15-2007, 11:21 AM

Cut the damned loopholes and *****footing and hold the owner of the pet legally responsible for the actions of that pet, then if negligence can be shown they should expect to get their asses sued into oblivion. That should go for any owner of any pet.

Aught Six · 01-15-2007, 11:22 AM

I wouldn't mind seeing more serious penalties for people whose lack of control over their animals results in the bodily harm of others. It goes in line with my whole 'keep morons off the streets' legal philosophy. Idiots get away with a lot nowadays, and I seem to see more people shirking responsibility and not being called on it. No good can come fromthis.

burniegoeasily · 01-15-2007, 11:28 AM

Kevin
Is that not happening now. Not sure about your area, but I know one of the pits we shot, the owners are up on crimal charges for allowing the animals to run free, as well as animal abuse charges.

I dont remember the name of the dog breed, but you all will remember the story; A man and women were brought up and convicted of manslaughter charges a few years ago when their two dogs killed a women.

I keep reading all this griping about Pits, but no answers to said grips. Ill agree, they are a strong aggressive breed that was breed to fight. Thats established. Its time to shine, let us know the answer to the problem. Time to quit griping and throw in your two cents.

Buster T · 01-15-2007, 11:34 AM

Quote:

$100,000 insurance
pit bull owners must register their dogs with the city, and have the animals spayed or neutered and marked with a tattoo ID. No one younger than 21 can handle a pit bull in public, according to the ordinance, and the animals cannot be chained in back yards.

Thats the law in Pine Bluff Arkansas in a nutshell ......... I'm sure there is also a stipulation on having an escape proof fence also.

The above is designed to protect the owner, dog and everyone

burniegoeasily · 01-15-2007, 11:39 AM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Buster T

Quote:

$100,000 insurance
pit bull owners must register their dogs with the city, and have the animals spayed or neutered and marked with a tattoo ID. No one younger than 21 can handle a pit bull in public, according to the ordinance, and the animals cannot be chained in back yards.

Thats the law in Pine Bluff Arkansas in a nutshell ......... I'm sure there is also a stipulation on having an escape proof fence also.

The above is designed to protect the owner, dog and everyone

That is great, but how do you regulate a variation??? That is the ultimate question. Ive had English bull dogs that look a lot like pits, but were not pits. Not registerd animals, so how could you prove they were pits, or they were not. Now, what about other large breeds that can inflict as much damage, and have on occasions. Do we ignore them. Masifs, Chow Chows, Shepards, etc, etc,. I feel this is the quandry.

kevin1 · 01-15-2007, 11:50 AM

Louisville may be sued for dog law

The city where I work, Louisville, recently enacted an extremely rigid ordinance primarily aimed at curbing the number of attacks by aggressive dogs, namely pits. The outcry against the ordinance is amazing, despite the fact that there have been two fatalities resulting dog attacks this year alone. Among other things the new law calls for pretty much all dogs in the metro area including show dogs to be altered, will exact a $250 fee for a license after proof of required shots has been tendered, and sections devoted to "aggressive breeds" may actually force the dog owner to construct a fence to enclose them in cases where one doesn't already exist. All the new law will acomplish will be to drive pet owners to break it by not licensing their animals, if their dog causes no harm to anyone the chance of them getting caught is slim and repercussions would be relatively light. Penalizing all dog owners for the irresponsibility of a very few is obviously not the answer, hammering the ones causing the problems is.

01-15-2007, 11:56 AM

I would like there to be no debate. No change in law, just hold people responsible for thier actions. I am regulated to the hilt now.

burn, you don't think they can be banned, go to Europe. They have made it very difficult to own a working breed dog.

burniegoeasily · 01-15-2007, 12:05 PM

Kevin
There lies the answer, "Aggressive Breeds". All though, I will take issue with the "Breed" in there, because Breed is not a scientific taxonomy. If the dog is not pedigreed, any lawyer would ripthis law to pieces. It should just say, "aggressive dog". I say that because my Grandmother was having problems with an aggressive toy rat terrier. Everyone ignored the problem simply because it was a small dog. I did not, I loaded her 20 ga and she keep it by her door. When the dog showed up in her yard agian, she was going to solve the problem. She didnt get to the gun in time. Shegotbit, requiring stitches, as well causing her to fall while retreating. As an effect of the fall, she suffered a broken ankle. All this happened in her front yard. By limiting a law to an "aggressive breed", you have limited her claiming on damages suffered, and the responsibility of the guilty party. She did shoot the dog, which brought the cops to her door. When they took her statement, they went and wrote the dog owner a small ticket for breaking the leash law.