Sorry, sir, we're here to take and kill your dog
 

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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."?

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.

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

Good riddance.

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.

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.

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.

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

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ta...%20Terrier.jpg

is capable of being just as mean as this?

http://ourworld.cs.com/dreadlives609/23efac40.jpg

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.

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

Humane.

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.

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.

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.

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

gee I love your insight into this :rolleyes: 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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? :D

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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?

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.