posted on May 9, 2002 07:48:45 AM new
Passing laws is not the answer.
Breeding and the level of people who own aggressive pit bulls is both the problem and the answer.
The answer is simple and like most changes in society has nothing to do with government.
Insurance companies will be who makes the change.
If you own a pit bull your liability insurance should reflect it.
This would eliminate the types of people who enjoy owning a dangerous dog .
If you breed pit bulls your insurance should reflect it as well.
Insurance for homeowners and landlords who allow pit bulls should be increased DRAMATICALLY!!
If you happen to sneak through the system and your dog injures a human your insurance is cancelled.
After that in order to get insurance it should be so expensive the owner will want to shoot the dog himself.
In typical round table fashion a dog becomes a government issue and responsibilty.
posted on May 9, 2002 08:37:06 AM new
Helen,
You know firsthand how quick that "switch" in an aggressive breed can be turned.
We are a "backwoods rual family" however we do have a little more than a "3rd grade education", my husband has a degree in biology. Dogs are important to us. Deer, rabbit and goose account for more than 50% of our meat during a year. We depend on our Beagles for rabbits, or to track a Deer.
My huband does work for area farmers in animal control. The new problem is stray dogs breeding with the coyotes in the area, and most of the strays are dogs that are on the "dangerous list".
Many people from the city think it is a status symbol to own these breeds. But when they get out of control they get "dumped" out in the country.
I believe in our 2nd Amendment and my Husband and I both are licensed to carry concealed firearms. But I have a LICENSE and our guns are registered. Maybe treating these killer breeds like handguns would weed out the unresponsible owners.
The misconception that these animals can be pets is some of the problem. We also had a Redbone Coon Dog, that was been trained to track coyotes. This dog was NOT A PET, he was a tool! He was kept away from other animals and people. His sole purpose was to hunt and track coyotes. He died from old age and appeared to be a happy animal who looked forward to the hunt and his training sessions. But he was never a PET.
There may be a purpose for Pit Bulls, although I can't think of one. As an animal that can be of use to a rual family like ours a Pit Bull is usless. If you want a dog for security look for a breed that you won't be afraid to turn your back on.
termite
posted on May 9, 2002 08:48:53 AM new
termite- well said!
breinhold- insurance? What makes you think the "backyard" breeders of Pits and Rotties have insurance? If someone DOES have insurance what makes you think their carrier knows they have a killer dog? Do you think they told them? The dog would obviously not be covered by any policy.
posted on May 9, 2002 08:58:14 AM new
The key word is liability and to make it even more simple it should be for any vicious dog not just the pit bull.
The first time the dog attacks ,your insurance goes through the roof or is cancelled.
The threat of that monetary penalty alone will make people think a little harder before breeding or owning any breed of dog that is ill-tempered.
posted on May 9, 2002 09:22:20 AM new
Most of these "Backyard Breeders" and "I've got a cool dog" owners, probably don't know the definition of "liability", or could care less.
Maybe we should add muzzle laws along with leash laws? LOL
The truth is these dogs serve no purpose. They are useless for hunting, as a working dog or for companionship.
If you chose one for a Pet remember the saying, "Keep your friends close to you, but keep your enemies closer" and treat the animal accordingly.
posted on May 9, 2002 10:24:35 AM new
Brienhold, have you given any measure of thought to your statements or are you raving ? Let me get this right the insurance companies should be alowed to control what a person has ? in other words the corporations should dictate to the citizens how they will live ? I'm sorry I know Bush cannot bring himself to say enron, not even while he is babbeling in spanish, but he is a prime example of how the republican party destroyed its own revolution by being big business fatcats. ENRON ! there I said it and while I am at it WAR CRIMES TRIALS for the ISRAELIS, starting with a UN INvestigation into the Murder of the American sailors that were on the USS LIberty when the Israelis Murdered them. But I digress, pond scum does not worry about insurance, your solution would only once again penalize the White majority for a hobby they do not have. I don't want anything in the hands of the gutless traitors that pack the boardrooms of Corporate America.
posted on May 9, 2002 12:32:01 PM new
snowey you have not addressed what was being discussed you just attacked the messenger. The fact is is that I do not like unelected government and that is what was advocated. You can't deal with pitbulls or aids or gangs without dealing with the fact that when the last world war ended we threw the baby out with the bathwater.
posted on May 13, 2002 01:51:32 AM new
As one of the outstanding authorities on dog training, Barbara Woodhouse, once said: "THERE ARE NO BAD DOGS, ONLY BAD OWNERS."
You can't blame the dog or the breed for what is bred in or taught to an animal. The OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE.
And I am glad to see recently that some of the owners are being put in jail for a goodly while for creating & allowing untrained, unrestrained dogs to hurt and kill folks.
Sad that the dog has to suffer for the stupid owner.
The first place to start would be to get rid of the back yard breeders who create such animals.
Actually, I am thankful every year that my favorite breed doesn't win the Westminster, because for a large breed dog, that can be the kiss of death, as everyone runs out to obtain the breed, and in the larger dogs, such as Shepherds, they are not a breed everyone should own.
posted on May 13, 2002 06:24:25 AM new
JWPC- how do you propose to get rid of backyard breeders? Barbara Woodhouse, if she is still alive, should be taken on a tour of the ghetto areas of the country and made to approach some of the Pits and Rotties. No bad dogs?
posted on May 13, 2002 10:52:20 AM new
There is a constant pressure in today's society to deny culpability for your own actions. We see this all the time. When some nut shoots up a school with a "blue" rifle we don't target the nut, we say let's put 200 addl laws against "blue" rifles. If a dog bites a person the owner is responsible, period. It doesn't matter if he got the pit bull and saved a few bucks by getting it from a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy. It doesn't matter that he got it because he heard they were real neato dogs and didn't know the source was his buddy's drug dealer.
It is his business to know. So now everyone has to search for the grand answer. Yeah, that's it, ban pit bulls. What happens next week when a schnauser attacks Mrs. Minny's 1st grade class?
Maybe there can be a national review board for allowed dogs. I don't know about you, but the nastiest mutt I've ever seen was my aunt's Yorky. I'd vote for him in a second.
posted on May 13, 2002 11:22:01 AM new
I had a cocker spaniel who had an overwhelming desire to chew off little boy's ears.
I don't know the answer to this problem. I certainly would not feel at ease leaving the responsibility of maintaining vicious dogs up to the discretion of the average American.
sp.ed
[ edited by Helenjw on May 13, 2002 11:23 AM ]
posted on May 13, 2002 11:43:25 AM new
Pit Bulls were raised for fighting, and are still being raised for the same purpose. This is the type of fight where two dogs are placed in a pit, with the last one living declared the winner. Great for the people who also like cock-fights. Perhaps that is where the "Pit" in Bit Bull comes from?
Dogs do exhibit behavior that can be very unpredictable. When I was growing up on the dairy farm back in Wisconsin, we had an Australian shepherd as a cow dog. Didn't need to teach that dog how to herd, it came naturally. It's incredable what an Australian shepherd can do as far as herding is concerned, and it is all instinct. We didn't have another dog around for it to learn from either. It wasn't much of a guard dog, but then we didn't need one. She did have one quirk that I never saw in any other dog, that in being very protective of any animal that was very young. We saw her once try to keep one of the mother cats away from her kittens. This dog and the cats got along just fine, but this time she was trying to "protect" the kittens from their mother. Her performance included growling and showing here teeth to mother cat, all the while keeping between the cat and her kittens.
Another time we had some family friends stop by and while there, they placed their infant son on the lawn. When the mother went to pick up her son, that dog tried to keep her away from the baby! No way that behavior could have been predicted (the kitten thing came later on), and it nearly resulted in the mother getting a chomp on the back of her leg.
I guess that the point I am trying to make is that dog behavior is not totally predictable, and that most breeds have been bred for a specific purpose. Traits that were bred into that breed will surface, and I would argue that no amount of training will prevent those instincts from doing so.
One of my favorite hobbies is bicycling, this being something that I have done for over 30 years. I have had close contact with many dogs over the years, all uninvited by myself. This includes German shepherds, great danes, dobermans (one last week), all the way down to chihuahuas. Other than getting in front of the front wheel and causing a collision, I have never felt threatened by most of these dogs. I do fear the eventual confritation with a Pit Bull because they are present. My luck will eventually run out, and when it does, I fear my little can of pepper spray probably won't be much help. My biggest help in determining whether to talk to the dog, yell at the dog, ignore the dog, try to outrun the dog, pepper the dog, hit the dog on the head with my tire pump, or get off the bike and keep the bike between me and the dog is what the dog's face (and size) tells me. I do not like what I see on the faces of those Pit Bulls restrained on a leash or behind a chain-link fence - I don't think that I would stand much of a chance.
Other wild animals are restricted from being owned by individuals, with wolves and large wild cats in that category. That was done to protect those, like myself, from being attacked without warning by someone else's "pet". I am libertarian by nature myself, but my beliefs only go so far as to say that someone else's right to do as they please (and own what they please) are allowed as long as my life and property are not threatened. The track record with the Pit Bulls is such that it should be placed in the same category as these other wild, unpredictable, and untrainable animals.
posted on May 13, 2002 12:37:17 PM new
oklahomastampman- Rottweilers belong in that category as well. A big part of the problem is that these dogs are so powerful that they can't be fought off. BTW- unlike Rotties which are actually smart, Pits are so stupid that there are numerous stories of them being mortally shot and stabbed while still holding onto someone's leg. When naturally stupid dogs are inbred they often become mentally defective and cannot be trained at all. When they are stupid, inbred and starved they are a weapon and should be treated as such.
posted on May 13, 2002 12:39:58 PM new
I'd be willing to bet the "track record" of pit bulls is a FRACTION of Rottweillers and German Shephards. Those are just too prevalent to make good newspaper copy in the "killer dog" mode.
posted on May 13, 2002 12:47:51 PM new
I remember back in 1989 when I got a 9year old male husky they owners were giving away as uncontrollable, he had bad habits would jump thru a window if left alone hated the sight of horses, picked fights, one day he got into it with a big male (80lb) husky named Max, Max had a lot of experience and was a lot younger and menaer than sage so when sage tried to surrender Max took the oppurtunity to bite him in his thing. naturally this caused a trip to the vet and
some time in the house, somewhere in that time he decided he liked me and would lidsten I trained him to pull sled and he was a good a lead dog as you could find, the local mushers would stop by and borrow him for training runs when one of theirs was down, Never could cure him of hating the sight of Max if someone had seen hhow he would try to get at max they would have swore he was a fiend incarnate, Trained him to herd goats and sheep and he was fantastic, we would let the Lamas and sheep and goats out and when I wanted them back i would tell him get me them goats people simply could not believe their eyes, he was good at passing his skills on to other dogs too, I used to take him to the animal swaps and he would walk at my side without a leash (yes I did say Siberian Husky!!!) One day I was at a swap and I heard him threaten a boy about 10years old I immidiatly moved to scold him when I felt a hand on my shoulder and Heard the Owner of the grounds telling the mother of the child off, apparently she the onwner of the event was running a food booth and was watching the crowd she had seen the boy at a booth where he had to hold the baby duck made sure he had it as high as he could witout making it look deliberate then dropped it, then at another booth it was on to squeezing a baby bunny til it screamed (yes the can do this) then she saw him approach the dog look around and when he thought that no one was looking try to stab his finger into the dogs eye, that is when the dog moved and threatened (did not bite) him. I wonder how this would have turned out if she had not seen this ? since that dayy when at those type of events I wathc like a hawk and you know what I can honestly say I never seen little girls do this but there seems to be a fair number of imbeciles breeding the type of fool than acts like this. I just love the local baptists they come into the restaurant with their kids and spend the entire time begging their Kids to behave. any how sage eventually died back in 2001, so did I a few months later, but when it happens in the ER they can do miracles.
so my point is sometimes a dog can be blamed for something they did not do, In the case of a lot of pits I have to agree they are a problem But I still would be a lot happier if their owners were steralized instead,
posted on May 13, 2002 01:03:42 PM new
aurora- I tend to agree with you about the logic of sterilizing some owners and yes dogs are often blamed for unprovoked attacks when often they are provoked. One problem I have with your story is walking a dog off a leash, let alone a powerful one like a Husky. Many cities and counties have leash laws for good reason. Many potential attacks are prevented only because the owner has the dog on a leash. How many otherwise "good" dogs with no prior history of aggression have unexplainedly attacked a person or other animal or suddenly ran out into the road after something only to get hit by a car? Unless you live on a farm or a ranch with many acres it is not wise to let your dogs loose. They can always wander off and get attacked by another vicious dog.
posted on May 13, 2002 01:49:41 PM new
A Rottweiler on a leash behind a chain link fence can leave the yard very easily if it sees something that it wants to fight. Oklahomastampman mentioned his concern about this possibility while biking.
posted on May 13, 2002 02:07:13 PM new
Helen- Are you advocating unleashing all Pits and Rotties? How about a few more breeds? Are you talking from experience? Or are you assuming that everyone, including a reasonably strong man could not control these dogs on leashes? Or are you once again just disagreeing to disagree? Okla's concerns are not necessarily reality! Or are you saying that they should be unleashed AND unfenced? Brilliant, just brilliant!
My answer to you is HELL NO! I am not advocating unleashing all Pits and Rotties. I am saying that NO MAN is strong enough to control one of these vicious animals even with a leash or a chain link fence.
And of course I am not saying that they should be unfenced and unleashed! What a crazy interpretation of what I said. My point is that these animals are too dangerous to live among people.
We don't live with tigers and bears. Why should we live with these vicious animals?
ubb ed.
[ edited by Helenjw on May 13, 2002 02:29 PM ]
posted on May 13, 2002 02:36:59 PM new
SO YOU ARE ACTUALLY AGREEING WITH ME THAT THEY SHOULD BE OUTLAWED? UNTIL THEN THEY SHOULD BE LEASHED AND FENCED, DON'T YOU THINK? TO SAY, HOWEVER, THAT NO MAN COULD CONTROL SUCH AN ANIMAL ON A LEASH OR BEHIND A STRONG FENCE IS LUDICROUS!
posted on May 13, 2002 02:38:07 PM new
You say that oklas concerns are not necessarily reality.
Well I believe that Okla's concerns are right on the mark. I had experience with a Rottweiler who broke from a leash, climbed over a chain link fence and in doing so was so strong that he bent the trim around the top of the fence.
Don't accuse me of disagreeing with you just for the hell of it. I disagree with you because you are ususally wrong.
posted on May 13, 2002 02:44:18 PM new
I am trying to communicate the fact to you and others here who may not know, that it is unsafe to leave a leashed rottweiler in a back yard behind a chain link fence and believe that he will not be able to escape and harm a human being. Is that too difficult for you to understand, stusi?
And if you take a Rottweiler for a walk on a leash and he decides to attack a child, you will not be able to restrain the dog with only a leash.
you have just proven my point about the round table, well done. thank you. 
