Sorry, sir, we're here to take and kill your dog - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

MSD · 05-11-2005, 10:06 AM

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...68197,00.htmlz

Quote:

It has to be one of the dumbest laws, ever. And I don't even own or like pit bulls. It's nothing personal, only that I'd never keep any animal that eats as much or more than I do.

Still, I can weep for the pit bulls of Denver, particularly for the puppies that never did anything other than get born into the breed.

Yet here we have the city of Denver, newly sprung from legislative and judicial restraint, rounding up pits over the past couple of days and killing them like rats during The Plague.

A uniformed officer arrives at a home. "I'll get him," she announces to her partner. Rather than fight it all, a distraught man emerges, weighs going to jail and a fine, and in the end hands over his dog.

"I'm definitely sad," he later tells a reporter. "He's like a member of my family."

Later in the day, a woman pleads: "I don't have no dogs!

"There ain't no dogs in the basement!" she yells as the uniformed man and woman, responding to an informant's report of a pit bull, interrogate her. Outside, squad cars filled with police officers wait to see if they are needed.

"I'm just doing my job," the woman officer later laments.

It has been eight years since I last had a dog, God rest him. And the one thing I truly know is I would have never given him over to the dogcatcher to be killed simply because he was a beagle.

I would hardly care if a judge in the city where I lived said it was the rule and the law. Yet this has been happening since Monday in Denver, when a state law prohibiting bans of "breed-specific" dogs was overturned and the city's moratorium on pit bull confiscation and killing was lifted.

And no one much is saying a thing.

It is why we need to speak with William Suro. He is a veterinarian of 45 years, who in 1988 started the MaxFund, a nonprofit that provides medical care for injured animals with no known owners, which seeks new homes for them.

It is a shelter that has never killed a single dog.

Bill Suro, 69, for years has wrangled with Denver in the courts of legal and public opinion over the ban, passed in the wake of the pit bull killing of a young child.

"Unfair. Stupid," Bill Suro says of this week's roundup. "It remains an emotional response to a terrible thing that happened, but one that doesn't really help those hurt or killed by vicious dogs."

Bill Suro is a blunt-spoken and uncompromising defender of animals, and a man who believes in harsh punishment for those who abuse and kill them.

He has in recent hours counseled numerous terrier owners, given the shock of their lives simply because their pets resemble pits and were threatened with euthanasia. Denver animal control authorities acknowledge receiving and being sent on numerous "could be a pit bull" calls.

"It makes me and every animal lover and organization across this country just sick," he said. "It's crazy."

He and his wife, Nanci, over the past few months have emptied MaxFund of every pit bull they once housed, shipping them to like-minded shelters outside of Denver.

He puts the number at close to 20 pit bulls. Some owners, too, have come to MaxFund, only to be turned away. He and Nanci, he said, have done all they could.

"We would absolutely love to be the Underground Railroad for pit bulls, but we know the city would close us down."

Yes, I tell him, but aren't pit bulls actually the human flesh-ripping monsters they are portrayed to be?

Bill Suro snickers at my naivete.

"I've been a veterinarian for 45 years, and I've never once been attacked or bitten by a pit bull. There are other breeds where I have gone into an examination room and really been on my guard. I will not tell you which, but they scare me."

Cities like Denver, he says, whip up pit bull hysteria. And that is all it is, he said. People now all believe every pit bull "is a coiled and snarling attacker. It's nonsense."

Cities, he said, would be much better served if they took a simple look at canine attacks from recent years.

"Eighty percent all fatal attacks in the U.S. are caused by male dogs. I guess, given this, it would be prudent to now ban all breeds of male dogs."

Denver, he said, does not at the same time send dogcatchers to cite owners of non-neutered dogs,

"It should know there have been fatal attacks in the U.S. by Pomeranians, that half a dozen attacks that caused death or serious injuries were by cocker spaniels."

And then he raises an issue I had not contemplated, and which I do not lend much credence to. But I will give him his say because it matches what has happened the last two days in the city:

"There appears a racial end of this," Bill Suro says.

"Look at the dogs that have been impounded, and the surnames of their owners. . . . They aren't killing dogs from Cherry Creek. They pick on the easiest people to pick on, the ones who give up easiest," he said, adding that he has forwarded this claim to the American Civil Liberties Union.

What happens, I ask, when all of the Denver pit bulls have been rounded up and put down?

He would not want to be a Malamute, he said.

A male Malamute attacked and killed a 7-year-old girl in Fruita last Saturday night.

"It is not the breed," an unsmiling Bill Suro said.

Maybe I would support a law neutering and spaying pit bulls if it were proposed as a reduction to this barbaric law, as I do recognize that they are a breed that is much more inclined to be violent than others, but this just disgusts me. If a dog attacks someone, the owner should be prosecuted for reckless endeangerment and whatever else they can throw at him. If a dog kills someone, they can be hit for negligent homicide. This kind of feel-good legislation is one step down the road to banning anything and everything that could make hurt someone or make someone nervous. Next they'll be banning fast cars, then they'll come for my loud satanic music, after that who knows where they'll go? Maybe I should put my trenchcoat and my guns (note: these items are not related to each other) in a safe deposit box out-of-state in case people are afraid of those.

It's time to vote the fucking idiots out of government.

jaco · 05-11-2005, 10:34 AM

Hmm, dog racists? amazing what people will let their own governments, which they are supposed to control, get away with. Isn't this the same day and age where we arent supposed to see a difference in races? I guess it doesn't count for man's best friend.

Glory's Sun · 05-11-2005, 10:45 AM

This is absurd. I cannot believe something like this was passed. There have been countless breed threads here but I can't help but echo what I've said before. The dogs aren't the problem. It's the fucking moron's who raise them or don't train them. Are some breeds more apt to attack than others? I really don't believe so. This kind of stupidity only opens the flood gates for more. This is why I say that if a breed is labeled as "dangerous" a person should have to take a class and obtain a permit to own a dog of a specific breed. Most people don't understand the responsibility that comes with owning any dog, much less a breed that requires a lot of devotion. I'm flabbergasted.. I really am. This is sick.

Cynthetiq · 05-11-2005, 10:46 AM

we're from the government... we're here to help.

yeah. thanks. I'm not opening my door.

lurkette · 05-11-2005, 10:46 AM

So sad. As the owner of a part-chow, this scares me no end. She's the sweetest, most submissive coward and has about 1/128th chow, just enough to give her a black spot on the tongue, but people see the pointy ears and the curly tail and get very anxious about her.

As the vet said, there are many breeds that have been responsible for vicious attacks, and more often than not the problem is not the breed per se but a tempermental disposition to dominance or territoriality combined with irresponsible owners who fail to train or confine their dogs. It's sad that regardless of whether it's humans' fault, it's the dogs that get punished.

clavus · 05-11-2005, 10:52 AM

First off - - LAME STUPID-ASS LAW

On a more techinical note, what is the operational definition of "pit bull"? Does it have to have over 50% pit bull DNA? Over 75%? Does it need to have a number of pit bull-like physical characteristics? Are only pure-bred with papers? What?

Can't a person just say, "This isn't the dog you are looking for. He's a terrier mix."?

Elphaba · 05-11-2005, 10:58 AM

I have a mixed breed rottie, also believed to be a dangerous dog. As Guccilvr stated, it's the owner and how the dog is trained that is important. My *Rottenweiler* is the most docile creature I've ever owned.

braisler · 05-11-2005, 11:32 AM

I hate reactionary laws like this. They get voted onto the books by government hoping to placate the rampaging parental hordes after some toddler gets mauled or killed. It is a farce. It never gets featured in the story by the press, but my spidey-sense tells me that 9 times out of 10 the toddler who got mauled was probably doing something unsupervised with the dog that they should not have been. Come on, we've all seen some kids around dogs. They'll pull the dogs tail or grab ears or tufts of fur and yank. Some dogs will tolerate this, some dogs won't. There can be good dogs or bad dogs of any breed or any mix. The idea of killing dogs just because they are a certain genetic background is born of ignorance. We should be focusing on enforcing the laws that do exist. As a previous poster pointed out, the owner of a dog that mauls should be charged with reckless endangerment, etc.

Hopefully this will be stopped soon. And I am sure that the law is being enforced in a racially motivated way as stated by the vet in the article. I bet if a city councilman's family had a American Pit Bull Terrier it would be classified as a terrier and left alone. But dogs owned by minorities who are likely to give in to police pressure are certainly pit bulls and killed outright.

Supple Cow · 05-11-2005, 11:36 AM

GOOD GRIEF. I used to own a pit bull and she was a lot sweeter than any other dog I've ever had. I would have raised hell if the government tried to take her and kill her. What the hell is wrong with these people? Dogs don't kill people. People kill people.

TexanAvenger · 05-11-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supple Cow

GOOD GRIEF. I used to own a pit bull and she was a lot sweeter than any other dog I've ever had. I would have raised hell if the government tried to take her and kill her. What the hell is wrong with these people? Dogs don't kill people. People kill people.

And appararently people kill dogs...

I can hardly find words to describe how absolutely appalled I am at this, aside from "Fuck that." Bet you ten bucks one of the breeds that vet was scared of was a poodle, but nobody's putting Fufu down... nor should they.

Glory's Sun · 05-11-2005, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexanAvenger

And appararently people kill dogs...

I can hardly find words to describe how absolutely appalled I am at this, aside from "Fuck that." Bet you ten bucks one of the breeds that vet was scared of was a poodle, but nobody's putting Fufu down... nor should they.

I'd side with you on that bet. I can't stand poodle's but that's neither here nor there. I guess we should have seen something like this coming. After airlines started placing restrictions on what breeds they would and would not transfer it was only a matter of time until something like this was set into place. I understand the need for safety, but again the root of the problem isn't a certain breed, it's the training the breed encounters.

Cynthetiq · 05-11-2005, 12:00 PM

I thought for a moment... What would the founding fathers of America say about this...

and I came up with this link, and I was VERY surprised to find out Thomas Jefferson's opinion on dogs.

Janey · 05-11-2005, 12:54 PM

we have a law going into effect in Ontario which bans the breed. When enacted, Pitbulls (however defined) will no longer be able to be sold. Existing pitbulls (however defined) will be left alone though, there will not be any collection/culling. Pitbull (however defined) owners will be required, however, to muzzle their pets in public.

This of course has raised a hew and cry similar to other posts in this thread. There are arguements on both sides, but hte most telling is that the OSPCA quotes dog bite statistics that 80% of reported bites inthe province are from pit bulls (however defined).

I myself am glad that the breed will be banned, because of the weight of evidence. the problem lies in definition of the breed. the net is going to be thrown wide, and the holes are fairly tight. Appeals will have to be made to a veterinarian to determine pitbull-ness. I haven't the faintest idea where the line will be drawn for mutts (50% plus 1? talk about your Clarity Act!). I always thought that these dogs were mutts anyways.

At any rate, my personal views aside, this may quash the 'gun on leash' issue for the short term, but the type of people that own problem dogs (as usual dogs reflect the personalities of their owners) will switch to other macho breeds for intimidation or machismo purposes (Canarias, Rotties). My neighbour has a very lovable light brown pitbull which doesn't bark at all. Nowhere near as obnoxious as the toy poodle next door, but I had to have a tall fence built as she kept hurling herself against the small one to chase squirrels. She was so powerful, that the chain link was pushed in permanently. But the dog is ugly, and when her fur is up, she is scary. Ergo fence.

CMH · 05-11-2005, 02:11 PM

Good riddance.

crewsor · 05-11-2005, 02:19 PM

I'm having a hard time believing this isn't an April Fools joke. It's a sad day when Police can come to your door to confiscate and kill your family pet because a few idiots decided it would be a good idea.

Demeter · 05-11-2005, 03:59 PM

Although I am wary of the potential aggressive power of dogs such as pitbulls & rottweilers, I don't think innocent dogs should suffer. I advocate the confiscation of a dog that has attacked a human (and by attack I mean purposely attack, not a playful bite someone takes out of context).
The sad fact is some people have dangerous animals. Dangerous because they are not taken care of properly, and/or they are abused. In these cases the owners should be put up for adoption by the SPCA.
I can see insurance coverage becoming mandatory for all dog owners. Sad days.

StanT · 05-11-2005, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demeter

I can see insurance coverage becoming mandatory for all dog owners. Sad days.

My present homeowner's policy has a list of breeds that they will no longer cover. Of course, I'd dump the insurance company rather than the dog.

Boulder no-kill shelters are now full of pit bulls. The Denver shelters were not allowed to accept them. This is a dumbass owner problem rather than a breed problem. Any dog can be mean if you raise it that way, the same applies to kids.

sixate · 05-11-2005, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanT

Any dog can be mean if you raise it that way

You are correct, but are you saying that a dog like this:

is capable of being just as mean as this?

I think we both know the answer.

I have no problem with this, but I hate all animals so bad that I can't even begin to comprehend why someone would have one living in their home and let their home smell like a zoo. But that's just me, and nobody has to be like me.

saut · 05-11-2005, 05:22 PM

What the hell? Doggie genocide? Something's wrong here.

skier · 05-11-2005, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janey

we have a law going into effect in Ontario which bans the breed. When enacted, Pitbulls (however defined) will no longer be able to be sold. Existing pitbulls (however defined) will be left alone though, there will not be any collection/culling. Pitbull (however defined) owners will be required, however, to muzzle their pets in public.

Humane.

Quote:

Yet here we have the city of Denver, newly sprung from legislative and judicial restraint, rounding up pits over the past couple of days and killing them like rats during The Plague.

Inhumane.

Are these dogs such rediculously high threats that they can't be allowed to live out their natural lives? They have to be stopped, here and now.

I have trouble believing this is real, it's so fanatical.

Seeker · 05-11-2005, 05:58 PM

My opinion of the Pit Bull changed a couple of years ago when two younger pups exuberantly 'attacked' myself and my daughter. They were so happy to see us and our car door open, they decided they were coming for a ride in the car!

Looking at these two happy pups sitting in my back seat was conflicting. The breed is notorious but these two looked like they were smiling from ear to ear. Telling my daughter to keep to a safe distance, I try for fifteen minutes to get these two out of my car without 'upsetting' them. I failed, I ended up getting a little rough with them and the strongest one was stronger than me. I think they thought it was a game! I ended up picking them up like babies to remove them. Then the owner showed up. I can tell you he was not pleased to see us having such a fun time, he looked pretty disappointed and perturbed actually. His dogs and I became really good friends over the next couple of months whenever they 'escaped', they came to my place for a romp and a game and then I would walk them home. The owner was visibly unimpressed with his dogs new playmate...

It really is the owners, not the dogs. Granted you can get a dog every once in a while that does not have a good temperament, but generally it comes down to the owners and how they choose to train their pets.

I would agree to owners being responsible for their dogs actions, that would then deter pet owners that wish to be irresponsible more so than just banning and culling a breed.

MsNobody · 05-11-2005, 06:03 PM

It is not the breed, it is how the individual animal was raised. If you ask me, those little Chihuahua dogs have the nastiest demeanor, ever, and you don't see anyone rounding up those ill-tempered, despicable dogs. It is truly a sad day in America when this sort of thing is allowed to happen. What is wrong with the people of Denver? They cannot all be that inept? Why are they not standing up to the injustice? Yes, it is truly a sad day in America.

Sweetpea · 05-11-2005, 06:06 PM

Horrific.

As an animal lover and animal rights advocate, i find this terrible. Animals have rights too.

If you would like to learn more about advocacy for animals: http://www.pasadosafehaven.org/

Every voice counts. You can make a difference.

Sweet Pea

Glory's Sun · 05-12-2005, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMH

Good riddance.

gee I love your insight into this

at least put a worthy post out there instead of a two word reply. kthanx

Sixate: Yes is the answer to your question. A smaller dog can easily be just as mean or dangerous as a bigger dog. I've seen German Shepherds and Rotties cower to a Pug. A smaller dog may not inflict the same amout of damage as a bigger dog but the damage factor is still there.

I'm just really shocked that legislation went this way. There was no middle ground, no trial of other methods, just the mass killing. If nothing else they should have put a law into place about having a permit to own special breeds and maintaining a training course every year or something. They could impose fines and penalities on those who refused and got tougher on the ones who had a history of violence. People need to own up for their actions, not drive a breed into extinction.

sixate · 05-12-2005, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

Sixate: Yes is the answer to your question. A smaller dog can easily be just as mean or dangerous as a bigger dog. I've seen German Shepherds and Rotties cower to a Pug. A smaller dog may not inflict the same amout of damage as a bigger dog but the damage factor is still there.

If you're telling me a Pug is potentially just as dangerous as a Pit Bull we have nothing to discuss. There is no Pug on the planet that can do the same damage as a Pit. No Pug could take down a full grown healthy man and fatally harm them. There is just no way in hell, and to say otherwise is just ridiculous. A Pug just wasn't designed by nature to be able to do the things that a Pit can do. When have you ever seen a guard dog be a Pug or a cutsie fuzzy wuzzy dog?

maleficent · 05-12-2005, 03:09 PM

I love animals as much as the next person, but there are limits.

I have absolutely no use at all for Pit Bulls or Rottweillers, and yeah, Elphaba, I know that Gus is a big baby, but 16 stiches in my arm that could have been my neck from someone's sweet family dog (Miserable Rottweiller) changed that opinion forever. (What finally got this dog off of me was several shots from the policeman who lived next door's service revolver fired into this dog.

Years before that, I was involved in a Big Sister program and I used to pick my little up at this pretty wretched housing project. One night, I had dropped her off at her apartment, and walked her in, on my way out, down a dark stairwell (because the elevators were broken) a Pit Bull cornered me. I had my pepper spray in my hands and was prepared ot use it against this dog, when it's owner finally came for it. I had no idea what this dogs intent was, I Know what my intent was going to be...

I know there is one person here who has a pitbull for a pet,andI"m sure is a responsible owner, however, that I am sure is rare. I have no problem with Pit Bulls being wiped off the planet.

raeanna74 · 05-12-2005, 04:03 PM

This kind of law is unfair and wrong.

I can understand perhaps banning some of the larger more aggresive breed dogs from apartment complexes and downtown in a city. Those dogs need room to run and do better in more residential or country living.
I can understand limiting the number of dogs in a household because the pack mentality takes over and they present a greater risk.
I can understand giving a period of time for owners to deport or sell their dogs.

I cannot understand overturning a law and then making a mass sweep looking for owners who will give up their dogs easily.

I'm not crazy about some of the more aggressive larger breeds but I have no problem with another dog owner who is responsible for their dog and does not allow it to harrass me or my child.

maleficent · 05-12-2005, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raeanna74

I have no problem with another dog owner who is responsible for their dog and does not allow it to harrass me or my child.

The owner of the Rottenweiller that attacked me was a NYC Fireman, with a wife who was a school teacher. They had 3 children that were around this dog. From all appearances they would have said they were responsible dog owners. I made the mistake of walking into my back yard. This product of responsible dog owners jumped a 6 foot chain link fence and came after me.

I'm just saying, responsible dog owners do not make up for psychotic dogs.

jorgelito · 05-12-2005, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

The owner of the Rottenweiller that attacked me was a NYC Fireman, with a wife who was a school teacher. They had 3 children that were around this dog. From all appearances they would have said they were responsible dog owners. I made the mistake of walking into my back yard. This product of responsible dog owners jumped a 6 foot chain link fence and came after me.

I'm just saying, responsible dog owners do not make up for psychotic dogs.

However, I don't think this is the norm. I definitely agree that some dog breeds have a potential to do much more damage than others. Factor in temperment, disposition and ownership, there are a lot of variables contributing to behavior.

I don't think etermination is the answer though. There has to be a better solution.

More people die from cigarettes and drunk drivers than they do pit bulls.

We don't exterminate frat boys or big tobacco.

There has to be a better solution.

Elphaba · 05-12-2005, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

The owner of the Rottenweiller that attacked me was a NYC Fireman, with a wife who was a school teacher. They had 3 children that were around this dog. From all appearances they would have said they were responsible dog owners. I made the mistake of walking into my back yard. This product of responsible dog owners jumped a 6 foot chain link fence and came after me.

I'm just saying, responsible dog owners do not make up for psychotic dogs.

I know the damage that dog did to you and that it had to be shot three times before it released it's grip on your body. Psychotic? I suspect not, given the three children. Poorly trained, probably, and responsible dog owners, I think not.

cellophanedeity · 05-12-2005, 05:33 PM

I think Toronto has it right in our methods. We're not letting pit bulls be bought or sold here, and they're not allowed to reproduce. Also, they must be muzzled in public. If one attacks, it is generally put down, but we're not killing snuggly family pets on mass.

What a terrible idea.

raeanna74 · 05-12-2005, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

The owner of the Rottenweiller that attacked me was a NYC Fireman, with a wife who was a school teacher. They had 3 children that were around this dog. From all appearances they would have said they were responsible dog owners. I made the mistake of walking into my back yard. This product of responsible dog owners jumped a 6 foot chain link fence and came after me.

I'm just saying, responsible dog owners do not make up for psychotic dogs.

I certainly don't blame you for feeling a bit hesitant around these dogs. I've seen many people affected by one bad experience with an animal. All the more reason to choose the particular animals that are easier to handle and then train them to be completely obedient. Then no one gets hurt even if the animal goes psycho. Really if that dog did that to you could that have been a responsible owner to keep it around his 3 small children? Or even better, a responsible parent?

bermuDa · 05-12-2005, 07:21 PM

an untrained pitbull is a scary thing, but rounding them up for the slaughter just for being a certain breed is scarier... the animal most responsible for fatal attacks on humans are other humans, I suppose that means we should be rounding up babies and 'putting them down,' you know, to save all those potential victims out there...

gotta nip this thing in the bud

maleficent · 05-12-2005, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bermuDa

an untrained pitbull is a scary thing, but rounding them up for the slaughter just for being a certain breed is scarier... the animal most responsible for fatal attacks on humans are other humans, I suppose that means we should be rounding up babies and 'putting them down,' you know, to save all those potential victims out there...

gotta nip this thing in the bud

OK Can we start with any kid who's ever been on or will get on an airplane with me, please?

Glory's Sun · 05-13-2005, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

I'm just saying, responsible dog owners do not make up for psychotic dogs.

Mal, I understand where you're coming from in this case, but do you really believe that all dogs of a certain breed are "psychotic"? No, that's like saying all humans are psychotic because one kills another. It just doesn't add up.

Also, Sixate, I know what you are trying to say and you are right to a point. A pug can't do as much damage as a Pit but nonetheless a pug has potential to harm someone. Could it fataly injure a grown man? Probably not? Could it fataly harm a small child.. probably. All I'm saying (and I know vets who can back me up) is that just because a dog is considered cute and cuddly or is a small breed, doesn't mean it can't injure someone. With the mindset that this law sets, we should kill all dogs, or any other animals for that matter simply because they pose a threat. Granted I know you wouldn't mind that but some of us would. Should we kill cats? I had a cat scratch me once.. bastard. It posed a threat.. let's kill all of them.

maleficent · 05-13-2005, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

Mal, I understand where you're coming from in this case, but do you really believe that all dogs of a certain breed are "psychotic"? No, that's like saying all humans are psychotic because one kills another. It just doesn't add up.

No, I'm saying they can be...

These dogs are not bred to be cute cuddly pets. These dogs are bred for protection and can easily kill a person. An annoying ankle biter rat dog or other smaller beasties can't very well kill a person.

People know better than to kill another human being, that's their choice, dogs can only do what they are trained to do, dogs do not have free will. Until you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a dog is trained, then get rid of it.

I'm not overly pleased with the precedent that this is setting, that a possession can be removed from a home, but the people shoul dnever have been allowed to own one of these beasts to begin with.

If the breed went away, I wouldn't shed a tear.

n0nsensical · 05-13-2005, 05:50 AM

My family had a Rottweiler from before I was born until I was about 9. He weighed more than a lot of people, but he was about the friendliest dog you could imagine. He was great around kids, and when he was 10 or 12 we even got a cat with whom he was also very friendly. As far as I know he never came close to being dangerously agressive with anyone. The way these dogs are raised is clearly a huge factor. I have no personal experience with pit bulls, but I know it would have been totally ridiculous to take our rottie away from us because he happened to be the same breed as some other dogs that are even trained to be agressive if not simply undisciplined. I don't want to mention a certain political party from the early-to-mid-20th century, but ah, I think you get the idea.

Glory's Sun · 05-13-2005, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

People know better than to kill another human being, that's their choice, dogs can only do what they are trained to do, dogs do not have free will. Until you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a dog is trained, then get rid of it.

That's what I'm trying to say. The dogs need to be proven to be trained in a certain manner and the owners need to be approved. That seems like a step in the right direction, or at least a better one than mass killings.

maleficent · 05-13-2005, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

That's what I'm trying to say. The dogs need to be proven to be trained in a certain manner and the owners need to be approved. That seems like a step in the right direction, or at least a better one than mass killings.

Until you can prove that a dog is trained... what do you do? Until then.. put it in dog jail?

jwoody · 05-13-2005, 06:17 AM

I can't say I'll be sad to say some breeds of dog on the endangered species list. Pit Bulls were specifically bred to be fighting dogs, they're all naturally psychotic. Some owners can subdue their fighting tendancies but I would say, from experience, it's impossible to eliminate that part of their make up entirely.

Banning the sale and breeding of such dogs is the more humane way to get rid of the problem but, if I had to live next door to one then I'd rather see the animal killed than tolerate it for next 10-15 years of it's (and my own) life.

05-11-2005, 10:34 AM	#2 (permalink)
jaco Crazy	Hmm, dog racists? amazing what people will let their own governments, which they are supposed to control, get away with. Isn't this the same day and age where we arent supposed to see a difference in races? I guess it doesn't count for man's best friend. __________________ "How soft your fields so green, Can whisper tales of gore" "Thou art god"

05-11-2005, 10:46 AM	#4 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	we're from the government... we're here to help. yeah. thanks. I'm not opening my door. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

05-11-2005, 10:46 AM	#5 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	So sad. As the owner of a part-chow, this scares me no end. She's the sweetest, most submissive coward and has about 1/128th chow, just enough to give her a black spot on the tongue, but people see the pointy ears and the curly tail and get very anxious about her. As the vet said, there are many breeds that have been responsible for vicious attacks, and more often than not the problem is not the breed per se but a tempermental disposition to dominance or territoriality combined with irresponsible owners who fail to train or confine their dogs. It's sad that regardless of whether it's humans' fault, it's the dogs that get punished. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

05-11-2005, 10:52 AM	#6 (permalink)
clavus pow! Location: NorCal	First off - - LAME STUPID-ASS LAW On a more techinical note, what is the operational definition of "pit bull"? Does it have to have over 50% pit bull DNA? Over 75%? Does it need to have a number of pit bull-like physical characteristics? Are only pure-bred with papers? What? Can't a person just say, "This isn't the dog you are looking for. He's a terrier mix."? __________________ Ass, gas or grass. Nobody rides for free.

05-11-2005, 11:32 AM	#8 (permalink)
braisler Addict Location: Midway, KY	I hate reactionary laws like this. They get voted onto the books by government hoping to placate the rampaging parental hordes after some toddler gets mauled or killed. It is a farce. It never gets featured in the story by the press, but my spidey-sense tells me that 9 times out of 10 the toddler who got mauled was probably doing something unsupervised with the dog that they should not have been. Come on, we've all seen some kids around dogs. They'll pull the dogs tail or grab ears or tufts of fur and yank. Some dogs will tolerate this, some dogs won't. There can be good dogs or bad dogs of any breed or any mix. The idea of killing dogs just because they are a certain genetic background is born of ignorance. We should be focusing on enforcing the laws that do exist. As a previous poster pointed out, the owner of a dog that mauls should be charged with reckless endangerment, etc. Hopefully this will be stopped soon. And I am sure that the law is being enforced in a racially motivated way as stated by the vet in the article. I bet if a city councilman's family had a American Pit Bull Terrier it would be classified as a terrier and left alone. But dogs owned by minorities who are likely to give in to police pressure are certainly pit bulls and killed outright. __________________ --- You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother. - Albert Einstein ---

05-11-2005, 10:45 AM	#3 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	This is absurd. I cannot believe something like this was passed. There have been countless breed threads here but I can't help but echo what I've said before. The dogs aren't the problem. It's the fucking moron's who raise them or don't train them. Are some breeds more apt to attack than others? I really don't believe so. This kind of stupidity only opens the flood gates for more. This is why I say that if a breed is labeled as "dangerous" a person should have to take a class and obtain a permit to own a dog of a specific breed. Most people don't understand the responsibility that comes with owning any dog, much less a breed that requires a lot of devotion. I'm flabbergasted.. I really am. This is sick.

05-11-2005, 10:58 AM	#7 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I have a mixed breed rottie, also believed to be a dangerous dog. As Guccilvr stated, it's the owner and how the dog is trained that is important. My Rottenweiler is the most docile creature I've ever owned.

05-11-2005, 11:36 AM	#9 (permalink)
Supple Cow Americow, the Beautiful Location: Washington, D.C.	GOOD GRIEF. I used to own a pit bull and she was a lot sweeter than any other dog I've ever had. I would have raised hell if the government tried to take her and kill her. What the hell is wrong with these people? Dogs don't kill people. People kill people. __________________ "I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed." (Michael Jordan)

05-11-2005, 12:00 PM	#12 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I thought for a moment... What would the founding fathers of America say about this... and I came up with this link, and I was VERY surprised to find out Thomas Jefferson's opinion on dogs. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

05-11-2005, 12:54 PM	#13 (permalink)
Janey Junkie Location: Toronto	we have a law going into effect in Ontario which bans the breed. When enacted, Pitbulls (however defined) will no longer be able to be sold. Existing pitbulls (however defined) will be left alone though, there will not be any collection/culling. Pitbull (however defined) owners will be required, however, to muzzle their pets in public. This of course has raised a hew and cry similar to other posts in this thread. There are arguements on both sides, but hte most telling is that the OSPCA quotes dog bite statistics that 80% of reported bites inthe province are from pit bulls (however defined). I myself am glad that the breed will be banned, because of the weight of evidence. the problem lies in definition of the breed. the net is going to be thrown wide, and the holes are fairly tight. Appeals will have to be made to a veterinarian to determine pitbull-ness. I haven't the faintest idea where the line will be drawn for mutts (50% plus 1? talk about your Clarity Act!). I always thought that these dogs were mutts anyways. At any rate, my personal views aside, this may quash the 'gun on leash' issue for the short term, but the type of people that own problem dogs (as usual dogs reflect the personalities of their owners) will switch to other macho breeds for intimidation or machismo purposes (Canarias, Rotties). My neighbour has a very lovable light brown pitbull which doesn't bark at all. Nowhere near as obnoxious as the toy poodle next door, but I had to have a tall fence built as she kept hurling herself against the small one to chase squirrels. She was so powerful, that the chain link was pushed in permanently. But the dog is ugly, and when her fur is up, she is scary. Ergo fence.

05-11-2005, 02:11 PM	#14 (permalink)
CMH Upright	Good riddance.

05-11-2005, 02:19 PM	#15 (permalink)
crewsor Women want me. Men fear me. Location: Maryland,USA	I'm having a hard time believing this isn't an April Fools joke. It's a sad day when Police can come to your door to confiscate and kill your family pet because a few idiots decided it would be a good idea. __________________ We all have wings, some of us just don't know why.

05-11-2005, 03:59 PM	#16 (permalink)
Demeter Psycho	Although I am wary of the potential aggressive power of dogs such as pitbulls & rottweilers, I don't think innocent dogs should suffer. I advocate the confiscation of a dog that has attacked a human (and by attack I mean purposely attack, not a playful bite someone takes out of context). The sad fact is some people have dangerous animals. Dangerous because they are not taken care of properly, and/or they are abused. In these cases the owners should be put up for adoption by the SPCA. I can see insurance coverage becoming mandatory for all dog owners. Sad days. __________________ I am not bound to please thee with my answers. William Shakespeare

05-11-2005, 05:22 PM	#19 (permalink)
saut Registered User Location: Pittsburgh	What the hell? Doggie genocide? Something's wrong here.

05-11-2005, 05:58 PM	#21 (permalink)
Seeker Getting Clearer Location: with spirit	My opinion of the Pit Bull changed a couple of years ago when two younger pups exuberantly 'attacked' myself and my daughter. They were so happy to see us and our car door open, they decided they were coming for a ride in the car! Looking at these two happy pups sitting in my back seat was conflicting. The breed is notorious but these two looked like they were smiling from ear to ear. Telling my daughter to keep to a safe distance, I try for fifteen minutes to get these two out of my car without 'upsetting' them. I failed, I ended up getting a little rough with them and the strongest one was stronger than me. I think they thought it was a game! I ended up picking them up like babies to remove them. Then the owner showed up. I can tell you he was not pleased to see us having such a fun time, he looked pretty disappointed and perturbed actually. His dogs and I became really good friends over the next couple of months whenever they 'escaped', they came to my place for a romp and a game and then I would walk them home. The owner was visibly unimpressed with his dogs new playmate... It really is the owners, not the dogs. Granted you can get a dog every once in a while that does not have a good temperament, but generally it comes down to the owners and how they choose to train their pets. I would agree to owners being responsible for their dogs actions, that would then deter pet owners that wish to be irresponsible more so than just banning and culling a breed. __________________ *To those who wander but who are not lost...* ~ Knowledge is not something you acquire, it is something you open yourself to.

05-11-2005, 06:03 PM	#22 (permalink)
MsNobody Tilted Location: Southern California	It is not the breed, it is how the individual animal was raised. If you ask me, those little Chihuahua dogs have the nastiest demeanor, ever, and you don't see anyone rounding up those ill-tempered, despicable dogs. It is truly a sad day in America when this sort of thing is allowed to happen. What is wrong with the people of Denver? They cannot all be that inept? Why are they not standing up to the injustice? Yes, it is truly a sad day in America.

05-11-2005, 06:06 PM	#23 (permalink)
Sweetpea Fade out Location: in love	Horrific. As an animal lover and animal rights advocate, i find this terrible. Animals have rights too. If you would like to learn more about advocacy for animals: http://www.pasadosafehaven.org/ Every voice counts. You can make a difference. Sweet Pea __________________ Having a Pet Will Change Your Life! Looking for a great pet?! Click Here! "I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

05-12-2005, 03:09 PM	#26 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	I love animals as much as the next person, but there are limits. I have absolutely no use at all for Pit Bulls or Rottweillers, and yeah, Elphaba, I know that Gus is a big baby, but 16 stiches in my arm that could have been my neck from someone's sweet family dog (Miserable Rottweiller) changed that opinion forever. (What finally got this dog off of me was several shots from the policeman who lived next door's service revolver fired into this dog. Years before that, I was involved in a Big Sister program and I used to pick my little up at this pretty wretched housing project. One night, I had dropped her off at her apartment, and walked her in, on my way out, down a dark stairwell (because the elevators were broken) a Pit Bull cornered me. I had my pepper spray in my hands and was prepared ot use it against this dog, when it's owner finally came for it. I had no idea what this dogs intent was, I Know what my intent was going to be... I know there is one person here who has a pitbull for a pet,andI"m sure is a responsible owner, however, that I am sure is rare. I have no problem with Pit Bulls being wiped off the planet. __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

05-12-2005, 04:03 PM	#27 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	This kind of law is unfair and wrong. I can understand perhaps banning some of the larger more aggresive breed dogs from apartment complexes and downtown in a city. Those dogs need room to run and do better in more residential or country living. I can understand limiting the number of dogs in a household because the pack mentality takes over and they present a greater risk. I can understand giving a period of time for owners to deport or sell their dogs. I cannot understand overturning a law and then making a mass sweep looking for owners who will give up their dogs easily. I'm not crazy about some of the more aggressive larger breeds but I have no problem with another dog owner who is responsible for their dog and does not allow it to harrass me or my child. __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

05-12-2005, 05:33 PM	#31 (permalink)
cellophanedeity Heliotrope Location: A warm room	I think Toronto has it right in our methods. We're not letting pit bulls be bought or sold here, and they're not allowed to reproduce. Also, they must be muzzled in public. If one attacks, it is generally put down, but we're not killing snuggly family pets on mass. What a terrible idea.

05-12-2005, 07:21 PM	#33 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	an untrained pitbull is a scary thing, but rounding them up for the slaughter just for being a certain breed is scarier... the animal most responsible for fatal attacks on humans are other humans, I suppose that means we should be rounding up babies and 'putting them down,' you know, to save all those potential victims out there... gotta nip this thing in the bud __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

05-13-2005, 05:50 AM	#37 (permalink)
n0nsensical Junkie Location: San Francisco	My family had a Rottweiler from before I was born until I was about 9. He weighed more than a lot of people, but he was about the friendliest dog you could imagine. He was great around kids, and when he was 10 or 12 we even got a cat with whom he was also very friendly. As far as I know he never came close to being dangerously agressive with anyone. The way these dogs are raised is clearly a huge factor. I have no personal experience with pit bulls, but I know it would have been totally ridiculous to take our rottie away from us because he happened to be the same breed as some other dogs that are even trained to be agressive if not simply undisciplined. I don't want to mention a certain political party from the early-to-mid-20th century, but ah, I think you get the idea. __________________ "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

05-13-2005, 06:17 AM	#40 (permalink)
jwoody Shackle Me Not Location: Newcastle - England.	I can't say I'll be sad to say some breeds of dog on the endangered species list. Pit Bulls were specifically bred to be fighting dogs, they're all naturally psychotic. Some owners can subdue their fighting tendancies but I would say, from experience, it's impossible to eliminate that part of their make up entirely. Banning the sale and breeding of such dogs is the more humane way to get rid of the problem but, if I had to live next door to one then I'd rather see the animal killed than tolerate it for next 10-15 years of it's (and my own) life.