Breed Specific Legislation | General Discussion

[quote]I'm confused and generally curious as to how you figure a measure that generally causes mass euthanasia and abandonment counts as saving lives[/quote] It's simple. The more you euthanize, the less dogs have the chance to breed. A year ago the city cracked down in my area on the feral dog population and euthanized every single stray. Since then, less ferals have been born, so the dogs that are on the street are generally friendly because they've been abandoned. We've taken about five of them in and put them at my roomate's second house in the junkyard. Though they werent pitbulls. They're now being fed and have fresh water and have tons of room to roam about in. That being said, if there is a breed that is overpopulating an area, and the dogs are destroying things or being neglected and euthanized anyway, a ban should be in place or some sort of licensing for these breeds to make sure they're sterile (so wild ones wont be born, to excaberate the feral population) and taken care of. I'd honestly like to see them ban pitbulls here because that would mean the good ones would find a better place to live in and the rest wont breed to create more homeless puppies. Pitbulls breed here better than other dogs. I dont see a problem banning them to prevent them from forming feral populations like what we've been dealing with. also please note that I basically live in mexico

Dactyl

0

319

1015

4996

August 30, 2013 22:22:10

Quote:

I'm confused and generally curious as to how you figure a measure that generally causes mass euthanasia and abandonment counts as saving lives

It's simple.
The more you euthanize, the less dogs have the chance to breed.
A year ago the city cracked down in my area on the feral dog population and euthanized every single stray. Since then, less ferals have been born, so the dogs that are on the street are generally friendly because they've been abandoned. We've taken about five of them in and put them at my roomate's second house in the junkyard. Though they werent pitbulls. They're now being fed and have fresh water and have tons of room to roam about in.

That being said, if there is a breed that is overpopulating an area, and the dogs are destroying things or being neglected and euthanized anyway, a ban should be in place or some sort of licensing for these breeds to make sure they're sterile (so wild ones wont be born, to excaberate the feral population) and taken care of.
I'd honestly like to see them ban pitbulls here because that would mean the good ones would find a better place to live in and the rest wont breed to create more homeless puppies.

Pitbulls breed here better than other dogs. I dont see a problem banning them to prevent them from forming feral populations like what we've been dealing with.

also please note that I basically live in mexico

Last edited on Aug 30, 2013 22:22:39 by Dactyl

Except in reality there is no distinction in BSL for a "good" pitbull type dog and a "bad" pitbull type one. Unless the owner is capable of picking up and moving or re-homing their pet (see: most people), the dog is either dumped or taken to the shelter, where per banning protocols, the animals are generally euthanized. So while you can say you are for BSL, it's tantatmount to squeezing lemon juice in my eye and telling me it's rain to act like it would be saving them or helping the "good ones" at all because a ban does not differentiate between perceptions of a good or bad example of a banned breed. That's simply not how breed bans work by any stretch of the imagination of the issue at hand

Joram

0

80

220

505

August 30, 2013 23:56:39

Except in reality there is no distinction in BSL for a "good" pitbull type dog and a "bad" pitbull type one. Unless the owner is capable of picking up and moving or re-homing their pet (see: most people), the dog is either dumped or taken to the shelter, where per banning protocols, the animals are generally euthanized. So while you can say you are for BSL, it's tantatmount to squeezing lemon juice in my eye and telling me it's rain to act like it would be saving them or helping the "good ones" at all because a ban does not differentiate between perceptions of a good or bad example of a banned breed. That's simply not how breed bans work by any stretch of the imagination of the issue at hand

Big evil logical meanieface

I was born and raised in Miami-Dade County, Florida. They have had BSL there since 1990. I can tell you, it does NOT work.

What people expected out of the ban: We ban these dogs, they'll die off and be put down, then we'll have no more 'pit bull' or severe dog attacks.

What actually happened: Some dogs were taken, put down, and died off. There was more or less a 'black market' for APBTs. Bad owners hid their dogs so they could use and abuse them like they had been already. Good owners hid their dogs to try and save them. Severe dog and 'pit bull' attacks still occurred, though not often. Dog attacks still happened in general.

What people think is the problem: They're 'pit bulls', used for fighting, therefore aggressive.

What the actual problem is: The breed is a strong one with quirks, and should not be as popular as it is. They're great dogs for the right people, as is the case with any breed (some people shouldn't own Goldens or Labs either, not everyone fits with every breed). They ARE popular despite what is said by some.

My views come from what I have seen, experienced, and studied. Living in an area for most of my life that had a breed ban in effect for most of it, and walking ALL around my neighborhood as all hours gave me perspective that many don't get. There is a LOT that people driving by can't see, trust me. There's a lot you see at night that you will not see during the day. I didn't live in the most run down area, nor was it the best by any means, but the fact that it was kind of moderate should be of note.

Walking home from school, and as I said, walking at all hours day and night, taking my Ibizan on walks...in about a 10 year span, I saw and noted about 16 'pit bulls'. These were dogs that by Miami-Dade laws and how they decide if a dog is a 'pit bull' on 3 different standards(which the UKC APBT standard has been revised as of 2012, but I remember it being pretty vague before then), would have been taken and put down. Goldens and Labs were considered to be two of the top, if not the top, most popular breeds in the country at this time. There were none. GSDs, I saw 3 of, and Chihuahuas came closest to the 'pit bulls' in numbers with 12. Both breeds were in the top 10 of most popular breeds in the AKC as well.

When I moved to a small town in Illinois with no breed ban, breed diversity was greater, which was a pleasant surprise, though having spent less than a year there, I couldn't really get a good feel for the numbers of different breeds and types.

In OKC, where I am now, I see more people walking 'pit bulls' than any other one breed/type. The exception was when I was working at a dog daycare. There were undoubtedly, more Labs, Goldens, and those 'doodles' than just about anything else-and yes, our daycare did allow 'pitties' if they passed the testing. I do see more 'pit bulls' listed regularly on CL, more in shelters if I go for whatever reason, than any other one breed or type. Mixes not included. So after all of this, when people say that 'pit bulls' make up whatever miniscule amount of the dog population they say, I want to call them out on it. Do what I do, see what I have seen, and try to tell me different. They are very popular, and popularity=more poorly bred dogs, more attacks from those breeds, and a plethora of other problems depending on where the breed was at before it was popular.

And for what BSL does...yes, people hide their dogs, as was seen when I was living in Miami. It's not hard to do. When BSL is implemented, the most drastic thing happens at first, which is dogs not registered and what not when it goes into effect...they get killed. There really is no other word for it. Even if the dog has done NOTHING wrong, it's taken and put down. After the heat dies off, the people who have no concern or regard for that dog, or may be using it for whatever reason to make money, be it fighting or breeding...they'll just get them again. It doesn't work. And the people who walk and train and work their dogs, who have social-able, agreeable companions. Their dogs are usually taken first if there is no grandfathering or if they for whatever reason didn't hear about the law changing. If there is grandfathering, there's usually restrictions like the dog have to be locked up, muzzled, can't be taken off the property. And for a dog that was getting out, going everywhere, doing things, being a good canine citizen....it's gotta be hard. It can devastate a dog to be put under such confines. It can turn a good dog into a stressful, antsy, nervous dog who develops issues because of the law. How does that make sense?

Granted, I have seen one of the silliest breed specific laws enacted. Dog must be contained, and if taken off property, must be leashed. Not allowed to roam. WHY IS THAT A BREED SPECIFIC THING?! Why isn't that already a normal 'dog' law?! Was the town/city founded on letting dogs run loose or something? I don't know. But they could have just taken out the breed specific wording and pass it for all dogs. Would have made more sense. -.-

Because you want to know what actually does work?
Not mandatory S/N. Not BSL.

Good general dog laws. Because we should work on lowering ALL dog bites, not just ones from ____ breed. AND! Education. Yes, education, specifically dog bite prevention education because most dog bites do occur in the home.

So I present, the Calgary Model:
http://www.defendingdog.com/id38.html

Sadly, if you live in a bad neighborhood with people not treating their dogs right and they just happen to be 'pit bulls', they'd either hide the dogs or move onto a different breed if a ban was enacted. I don't think people want those types owning even larger molossiods if they already mistreat their dogs. >.>,,

Karja

0

334

726

475

August 31, 2013 03:08:57

I was born and raised in Miami-Dade County, Florida. They have had BSL there since 1990. I can tell you, it does NOT work.

What people expected out of the ban: We ban these dogs, they'll die off and be put down, then we'll have no more 'pit bull' or severe dog attacks.

What actually happened: Some dogs were taken, put down, and died off. There was more or less a 'black market' for APBTs. Bad owners hid their dogs so they could use and abuse them like they had been already. Good owners hid their dogs to try and save them. Severe dog and 'pit bull' attacks still occurred, though not often. Dog attacks still happened in general.

What people think is the problem: They're 'pit bulls', used for fighting, therefore aggressive.

What the actual problem is: The breed is a strong one with quirks, and should not be as popular as it is. They're great dogs for the right people, as is the case with any breed (some people shouldn't own Goldens or Labs either, not everyone fits with every breed). They ARE popular despite what is said by some.

My views come from what I have seen, experienced, and studied. Living in an area for most of my life that had a breed ban in effect for most of it, and walking ALL around my neighborhood as all hours gave me perspective that many don't get. There is a LOT that people driving by can't see, trust me. There's a lot you see at night that you will not see during the day. I didn't live in the most run down area, nor was it the best by any means, but the fact that it was kind of moderate should be of note.

Walking home from school, and as I said, walking at all hours day and night, taking my Ibizan on walks...in about a 10 year span, I saw and noted about 16 'pit bulls'. These were dogs that by Miami-Dade laws and how they decide if a dog is a 'pit bull' on 3 different standards(which the UKC APBT standard has been revised as of 2012, but I remember it being pretty vague before then), would have been taken and put down. Goldens and Labs were considered to be two of the top, if not the top, most popular breeds in the country at this time. There were none. GSDs, I saw 3 of, and Chihuahuas came closest to the 'pit bulls' in numbers with 12. Both breeds were in the top 10 of most popular breeds in the AKC as well.

When I moved to a small town in Illinois with no breed ban, breed diversity was greater, which was a pleasant surprise, though having spent less than a year there, I couldn't really get a good feel for the numbers of different breeds and types.

In OKC, where I am now, I see more people walking 'pit bulls' than any other one breed/type. The exception was when I was working at a dog daycare. There were undoubtedly, more Labs, Goldens, and those 'doodles' than just about anything else-and yes, our daycare did allow 'pitties' if they passed the testing. I do see more 'pit bulls' listed regularly on CL, more in shelters if I go for whatever reason, than any other one breed or type. Mixes not included. So after all of this, when people say that 'pit bulls' make up whatever miniscule amount of the dog population they say, I want to call them out on it. Do what I do, see what I have seen, and try to tell me different. They are very popular, and popularity=more poorly bred dogs, more attacks from those breeds, and a plethora of other problems depending on where the breed was at before it was popular.

And for what BSL does...yes, people hide their dogs, as was seen when I was living in Miami. It's not hard to do. When BSL is implemented, the most drastic thing happens at first, which is dogs not registered and what not when it goes into effect...they get killed. There really is no other word for it. Even if the dog has done NOTHING wrong, it's taken and put down. After the heat dies off, the people who have no concern or regard for that dog, or may be using it for whatever reason to make money, be it fighting or breeding...they'll just get them again. It doesn't work. And the people who walk and train and work their dogs, who have social-able, agreeable companions. Their dogs are usually taken first if there is no grandfathering or if they for whatever reason didn't hear about the law changing. If there is grandfathering, there's usually restrictions like the dog have to be locked up, muzzled, can't be taken off the property. And for a dog that was getting out, going everywhere, doing things, being a good canine citizen....it's gotta be hard. It can devastate a dog to be put under such confines. It can turn a good dog into a stressful, antsy, nervous dog who develops issues because of the law. How does that make sense?

Granted, I have seen one of the silliest breed specific laws enacted. Dog must be contained, and if taken off property, must be leashed. Not allowed to roam. WHY IS THAT A BREED SPECIFIC THING?! Why isn't that already a normal 'dog' law?! Was the town/city founded on letting dogs run loose or something? I don't know. But they could have just taken out the breed specific wording and pass it for all dogs. Would have made more sense. -.-

Because you want to know what actually does work?
Not mandatory S/N. Not BSL.

Good general dog laws. Because we should work on lowering ALL dog bites, not just ones from ____ breed. AND! Education. Yes, education, specifically dog bite prevention education because most dog bites do occur in the home.

So I present, the Calgary Model:
http://www.defendingdog.com/id38.html

Sadly, if you live in a bad neighborhood with people not treating their dogs right and they just happen to be 'pit bulls', they'd either hide the dogs or move onto a different breed if a ban was enacted. I don't think people want those types owning even larger molossiods if they already mistreat their dogs. >.>,,

Last edited on Aug 31, 2013 03:17:19 by Karja

@zrcalo

...But what about people whose dogs would be taken away for no reason other then their breed? Because that's exactly what BSL laws do in some places. You don't seem to understand how important people's pets are to them.

You can't justify to me the idea of someone coming into my home and taking my spayed, sweet as can be 11 year old Rottweiler away from the only family she's ever had.

Lesley

0

64

15

5629

August 31, 2013 07:35:55

@zrcalo

...But what about people whose dogs would be taken away for no reason other then their breed? Because that's exactly what BSL laws do in some places. You don't seem to understand how important people's pets are to them.

You can't justify to me the idea of someone coming into my home and taking my spayed, sweet as can be 11 year old Rottweiler away from the only family she's ever had.

I found stars on the tip of your tongue/You speak poltergeist and so do I

Last edited on Aug 31, 2013 07:42:26 by Lesley

When BSL comes to mandatory spaying and neutering, especially within city limits, I am all for it. If you're going to be breeding these dogs (we're going to assume you are a serious breeder and are not fighting them) then you shouldn't be doing it within a city anyways. Most of these are medium to large dog breeds- they need their space and outdoors time.

It should really be the situation for most breeds, but that's just me. I think spaying and neutering is a good thing.

Spelunking

360

111

641

87

August 31, 2013 08:03:47

When BSL comes to mandatory spaying and neutering, especially within city limits, I am all for it. If you're going to be breeding these dogs (we're going to assume you are a serious breeder and are not fighting them) then you shouldn't be doing it within a city anyways. Most of these are medium to large dog breeds- they need their space and outdoors time.

It should really be the situation for most breeds, but that's just me. I think spaying and neutering is a good thing.

[quote name="Spelunking" date="2013-08-31 08:03:47"]When BSL comes to mandatory spaying and neutering, especially within city limits, I am all for it. If you're going to be breeding these dogs (we're going to assume you are a serious breeder and are [i]not [/i]fighting them) then you shouldn't be doing it within a city anyways. Most of these are medium to large dog breeds- they need their space and outdoors time. It should really be the situation for most breeds, but that's just me. I think spaying and neutering is a good thing.[/quote] Oh yes, I definitely support mandatory spay/neuter without a breeding permit. Honestly it would work a lot better then just banning dogs outright, and should go for all breeds, not just ones people think are dangerous. We fix all our animals, and the only time we've had a litter was when we took in a pregnant stray cat, and all the kittens went to trusted friends.

Lesley

0

64

15

5629

August 31, 2013 09:14:44

Spelunking wrote on 2013-08-31 08:03:47:

When BSL comes to mandatory spaying and neutering, especially within city limits, I am all for it. If you're going to be breeding these dogs (we're going to assume you are a serious breeder and are not fighting them) then you shouldn't be doing it within a city anyways. Most of these are medium to large dog breeds- they need their space and outdoors time.

It should really be the situation for most breeds, but that's just me. I think spaying and neutering is a good thing.

Oh yes, I definitely support mandatory spay/neuter without a breeding permit. Honestly it would work a lot better then just banning dogs outright, and should go for all breeds, not just ones people think are dangerous. We fix all our animals, and the only time we've had a litter was when we took in a pregnant stray cat, and all the kittens went to trusted friends.

I found stars on the tip of your tongue/You speak poltergeist and so do I

Last edited on Aug 31, 2013 09:19:23 by Lesley

[quote name="Slenderman" date="2013-08-30 17:57:55"]My aunt is the owner of four ([i]very very big[/i]) pit bulls and they're all a bunch of sweethearts! I really cannot stand people who put bad rap on a dog when the dogs are [i]trained[/i] to be aggressive and violent by the [b]owner[/b].[/quote] First off: I approve of your username. It's awesome. Secondly, a little extra information to support your words: "Aggressive" dog breeds are truly just dog breeds that are [i]people pleasers[/i]. As you said, they are dogs who are trained to be aggressive. A people-pleasing dog takes it's cues from it's owner. If it performs violent or aggressive acts and is praised, then it will continue to perform those acts. The vice versa is also true. Rather than enacting BSLs, they could funnel dogs through not-for-profit adoption organizations, such as the one I adopted my dog from, the H.A.R.T. organization. Organizations like these perform home/slight background checks, and come back on multiple occaissions months after the adoption, to insure the dog is being taken care of properly. Spaying/neutering is also a great tool, and most adoption organizations will do them before allowing the dog to be adopted. But I agree with @Karja that education is absolutely one of the biggest keys to general animal safety. People just don't know how to act around dogs. They may be domesticated, but they are still [i]animals[/i], and should be treated with respect and caution if you don't know them. But that's just my two-cents. Perhaps I should write to my Congress representatives.

Sassassin94

0

21

49

7

August 31, 2013 19:12:04

Slenderman wrote on 2013-08-30 17:57:55:

My aunt is the owner of four (very very big) pit bulls and they're all a bunch of sweethearts! I really cannot stand people who put bad rap on a dog when the dogs are trained to be aggressive and violent by the owner.

First off: I approve of your username. It's awesome.

Secondly, a little extra information to support your words:

"Aggressive" dog breeds are truly just dog breeds that are people pleasers. As you said, they are dogs who are trained to be aggressive. A people-pleasing dog takes it's cues from it's owner. If it performs violent or aggressive acts and is praised, then it will continue to perform those acts. The vice versa is also true.

Rather than enacting BSLs, they could funnel dogs through not-for-profit adoption organizations, such as the one I adopted my dog from, the H.A.R.T. organization. Organizations like these perform home/slight background checks, and come back on multiple occaissions months after the adoption, to insure the dog is being taken care of properly.

Spaying/neutering is also a great tool, and most adoption organizations will do them before allowing the dog to be adopted.

But I agree with @Karja that education is absolutely one of the biggest keys to general animal safety. People just don't know how to act around dogs. They may be domesticated, but they are still animals, and should be treated with respect and caution if you don't know them.

But that's just my two-cents. Perhaps I should write to my Congress representatives.

I don't agree with mandatory S/N for multiple reasons. S/N is a double-edged sword anyway.

Some breeds and individuals have a sensitivity to being put under. It can be highly dangerous.

S/N, especially early S/N, can increase the risk of certain problems. In Rottweilers, it can increase the chance of bone cancer, which is a far more aggressive and much harder to deal with cancer than those associated with having the reproductive organs intact. In general it can also increase the risk of ACL tears, thyroid problems, and incontinence(which is something that will cause some people to get rid of their dogs-not very good for getting people to retain their dogs instead of giving them up). It is also being shown to increase aggression instead of preventing it(if being intact was a reason for aggression, then why in the world aren't dog shows a giant free for all?), and neutered males do often have issues with intact males. It can also mess with how trainable and calm a dog will be. S/N early can be really bad for larger breeds, as the growth plates won't close, and the way the dog grows can be thrown off immensely, creating a larger, lankier dog which is not a good thing as sexual hormones actually do stop over-growth.
http://www.vizslacanada.ca/SNBehaviorBoneDataSnapShot.pdf Also, in other countries which do not S/N as much as we do, dogs live longer.

Now, we could do ovary sparing spays and vasectomies. It would be a great benefit to do so, in order to keep the hormones there but prevent unwanted litters. But if that is acceptable for the places that enact such laws? It's probably going to vary. And it may very well vary on the person to talk to within a city even.

The permits you can get that make you an exception....it's horrible really. Because they, the politicians, are listening to everyone but the real dog fanciers on it. So in one place in CA, your dogs had to be registered with only the registries they chose, and no other. So it ignores the fact that there are various, multiple registries for working dogs. It also ignores the fact that some working dogs may not be registered at all. It also would be impossible to have a rare breed that is not yet accepted by one of their 'approved' clubs. It's not right, it's not fair.

Also, those laws don't work. Just as BSL wastes money, mandatory S/N laws waste money. It's been shown to increase euthanasia rates too. So what's the point really? And it's so stupid because other places aren't learning from other's mistakes. Do they think they're some kind of exception?

http://saveourdogs.net/2009/04/01/mandatory-spayneuter-laws%E2%80%94a-failure-everywhere/

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2008/07/more-on-los-angeles-msn.html

It's just not a good law. Education does work and is working, it's just slower-which isn't a bad thing. I'm not against S/N with animals that end up in the shelter(unless if it's done right when the animal comes in and doesn't even get a chance to be reclaimed-there have been stolen/lost show dogs that have gotten the snip because of this), and I'm not against people saying 'this is what I want, it's best for me' and doing it. I'm not against people waiting to do it until the dog has finished growing. I'm not against places doing vouchers and encouraging S/N because if they're a responsible owner, they'll do some reading and decide whether or not it's the right choice for them and they'll do their best to prevent unplanned litters(and granted, accidents still happen to the best sometimes, they shouldn't be looked down on for that). But I can NOT support mandatory S/N in all good conscience. There's just way too many problems.

@Sassassin94
That really is what it comes down to. Animals are animals. Do they have teeth? Yes. Then they can bite. I don't know what some people expect really. They have an independent mind. This is why no dog is 100% completely 'bomb proof', because you never know what they'll react to or how they'll react to it. A dog may be used to fireworks, but if a plane comes crashing down 100ft away, if that dog going to hold a down stay? I don't think so. And animals, like people, just have bad days. It's the way of things. Very frustrating that people don't understand that.

Karja

0

334

726

475

August 31, 2013 22:42:48

I don't agree with mandatory S/N for multiple reasons. S/N is a double-edged sword anyway.

Some breeds and individuals have a sensitivity to being put under. It can be highly dangerous.

S/N, especially early S/N, can increase the risk of certain problems. In Rottweilers, it can increase the chance of bone cancer, which is a far more aggressive and much harder to deal with cancer than those associated with having the reproductive organs intact. In general it can also increase the risk of ACL tears, thyroid problems, and incontinence(which is something that will cause some people to get rid of their dogs-not very good for getting people to retain their dogs instead of giving them up). It is also being shown to increase aggression instead of preventing it(if being intact was a reason for aggression, then why in the world aren't dog shows a giant free for all?), and neutered males do often have issues with intact males. It can also mess with how trainable and calm a dog will be. S/N early can be really bad for larger breeds, as the growth plates won't close, and the way the dog grows can be thrown off immensely, creating a larger, lankier dog which is not a good thing as sexual hormones actually do stop over-growth.
http://www.vizslacanada.ca/SNBehaviorBoneDataSnapShot.pdf Also, in other countries which do not S/N as much as we do, dogs live longer.

Now, we could do ovary sparing spays and vasectomies. It would be a great benefit to do so, in order to keep the hormones there but prevent unwanted litters. But if that is acceptable for the places that enact such laws? It's probably going to vary. And it may very well vary on the person to talk to within a city even.

The permits you can get that make you an exception....it's horrible really. Because they, the politicians, are listening to everyone but the real dog fanciers on it. So in one place in CA, your dogs had to be registered with only the registries they chose, and no other. So it ignores the fact that there are various, multiple registries for working dogs. It also ignores the fact that some working dogs may not be registered at all. It also would be impossible to have a rare breed that is not yet accepted by one of their 'approved' clubs. It's not right, it's not fair.

Also, those laws don't work. Just as BSL wastes money, mandatory S/N laws waste money. It's been shown to increase euthanasia rates too. So what's the point really? And it's so stupid because other places aren't learning from other's mistakes. Do they think they're some kind of exception?

http://saveourdogs.net/2009/04/01/mandatory-spayneuter-laws%E2%80%94a-failure-everywhere/

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2008/07/more-on-los-angeles-msn.html

It's just not a good law. Education does work and is working, it's just slower-which isn't a bad thing. I'm not against S/N with animals that end up in the shelter(unless if it's done right when the animal comes in and doesn't even get a chance to be reclaimed-there have been stolen/lost show dogs that have gotten the snip because of this), and I'm not against people saying 'this is what I want, it's best for me' and doing it. I'm not against people waiting to do it until the dog has finished growing. I'm not against places doing vouchers and encouraging S/N because if they're a responsible owner, they'll do some reading and decide whether or not it's the right choice for them and they'll do their best to prevent unplanned litters(and granted, accidents still happen to the best sometimes, they shouldn't be looked down on for that). But I can NOT support mandatory S/N in all good conscience. There's just way too many problems.

@Sassassin94
That really is what it comes down to. Animals are animals. Do they have teeth? Yes. Then they can bite. I don't know what some people expect really. They have an independent mind. This is why no dog is 100% completely 'bomb proof', because you never know what they'll react to or how they'll react to it. A dog may be used to fireworks, but if a plane comes crashing down 100ft away, if that dog going to hold a down stay? I don't think so. And animals, like people, just have bad days. It's the way of things. Very frustrating that people don't understand that.

Last edited on Aug 31, 2013 22:46:15 by Karja

@Karja Thank you. Just....just thank you

Joram

0

80

220

505

September 01, 2013 13:47:01

@Karja Thank you. Just....just thank you

Big evil logical meanieface

The problem I see with BSLs is that 99.5% of the average people couldn't correctly identify a pit bull if it ran up and barked in their faces! I've had friends who own other breeds and the stories they tell!

One friend has a Boston Terrier. At the dog park he overheard one woman whisper to her child 'That's a mini pit bull! Stay away from it!'

Another friend had complaints about her 'giant long haired pit bull'. Um...she owns a Newfoundland!

Then there's the other friend who was taking their two black Labs on a walk and was accused of allowing their 'pit bulls' out without muzzles!!!!!!!!!!!!

The sad fact is, if you get an American Pit bull puppy, or a Staffordshire or any other of those 'vicious' breeds, socialize and train it properly you have just about the most people-oriented dog ever! They love people! It's the idiots out there who either don't have a clue about how to train a dog or want a 'tough' dog to enhance their own sad image who cause the problems.

'Hoo I'm one big bad dude cuz I gots me a dog nobody else can handle!!!'

No sir, you are not big and bad, you are an addle-brained idiot!!!

Remember 'Our Gang'? Petey was a pit bull! Tyghe in the Buster Brown commercials was a pit bull. And let's not forget Sgt. Stubby, the first decorated army dog. Yep, he was a pittie too! So mean and vicious, these dogs. :P

I used to work for a vet and when people brought in their pits, rotties, dobes and the like we had no prob. The dogs were trained and were sweethearts! Then here comes the poodle and pekes. Little furballs with teeth!!! We had to restrain more of them than the larger dogs!

The bottom line is...People make bad dangerous dogs, not Breeds!!!!

Bathos

0

45

64

158

September 02, 2013 06:02:56

The problem I see with BSLs is that 99.5% of the average people couldn't correctly identify a pit bull if it ran up and barked in their faces! I've had friends who own other breeds and the stories they tell!

One friend has a Boston Terrier. At the dog park he overheard one woman whisper to her child 'That's a mini pit bull! Stay away from it!'

Another friend had complaints about her 'giant long haired pit bull'. Um...she owns a Newfoundland!

Then there's the other friend who was taking their two black Labs on a walk and was accused of allowing their 'pit bulls' out without muzzles!!!!!!!!!!!!

The sad fact is, if you get an American Pit bull puppy, or a Staffordshire or any other of those 'vicious' breeds, socialize and train it properly you have just about the most people-oriented dog ever! They love people! It's the idiots out there who either don't have a clue about how to train a dog or want a 'tough' dog to enhance their own sad image who cause the problems.

'Hoo I'm one big bad dude cuz I gots me a dog nobody else can handle!!!'

No sir, you are not big and bad, you are an addle-brained idiot!!!

Remember 'Our Gang'? Petey was a pit bull! Tyghe in the Buster Brown commercials was a pit bull. And let's not forget Sgt. Stubby, the first decorated army dog. Yep, he was a pittie too! So mean and vicious, these dogs. :P

I used to work for a vet and when people brought in their pits, rotties, dobes and the like we had no prob. The dogs were trained and were sweethearts! Then here comes the poodle and pekes. Little furballs with teeth!!! We had to restrain more of them than the larger dogs!

The bottom line is...People make bad dangerous dogs, not Breeds!!!!