From the American Rottweiler Club:
So do you really think any moron off the street should be able to walk into a store and buy one of those?
Yeeeaaahhhh, riiiiiight. :rolleyes:
Ya really oughta just quit before you get any further behind.
I absolutely do. Police dogs are not vicious monsters, they are highly trained, highly intelligent, highly socialized dogs, and they know the difference between “at work” and “not at work”. Police dogs go home with their handlers at night, and usually retire with their handler when they are too old to work. This means, in many cases, when they are not at work, they are family dogs. These dogs have the training to know when it is appropriate to “attack”, release the second they are commanded to, and are trained not to kill, but to hold.
Rotts are also often used as Therapy Dogs.
Here’s some links to the dogs you want to ban:
http://www.rott-n-chatter.com/hearts/hearts.html
http://www.rottclub.ca/therapy.html
http://www.ydr.com/pets/pets040212.php
http://www.kidsanddogs.bravepages.com/rotties.html
Oh. My. God. What obviously horrible, vicious animals! Oh wait, they’re not, because their owners are knowledgeable about thier breed, and socialized and trained them well.
Fuck it, let’s ban em anyways, right CarnalK?
Now, I’m certainly not advocating everyone train their dog in Schutzhund (which is basically what police and guard dogs learn), or as a TD, but I have, do and always will advocate owners to both socialize and train their dogs, and do it well.
Someone earlier mentioned that if you want to own one of the more “dangerous” breeds, you should have to register them (as in, have them licensed by the city/county/state/whatever branch of govt.), and as an addendum to registering them, proof of ongoing socialization and training, such as the CGC certificate.
http://akc.org/love/cgc/program.cfm
Bolding mine. I would give a law like that my full support because it not only does not infringe on the rights of responsible large or so-called “aggressive” breed owners to have their dogs, it addresses the REAL problem. If people aren’t willing to abide by it, take the dogs, and KEEP taking the dogs.
Or, I don’t know, for a start they could try actually enforcing the existing Dangerous Dog laws already on the books, which alot of law enforcement agencies don’t bother to do. For that matter, why aren’t there laws banning proven irresponsible dog owners from ever owning dogs again?
What’s that, you say? There are places that prevent habitual offenders from keeping animals? But that they get them anyways, and keep getting them? So that won’t really solve the problem?
:eek:
Say it ain’t so!
You know what? You’re just deliberately trying to be obtuse, and if you really meant that statement you’re just an idiot. Banning pit bulls won’t stop an attack from the other twenty-four other fucking breeds on that page that look a fuck of alot like Pit Bulls to alot of people, and have been misreported as pit bulls in the media on occasionor misattributed to cross-breeds. How many tries did that test take YOU to pick the pit bull out? I’m betting you’ll say first try, because you’re so damn determined to be right, but I’d bet money it took you at least a few tries.
I KNOW my dog breeds. I can identify alot of dogs most people have never even heard of, like an Egyptian Pharoah hound, and I didn’t identify it in one go, so how in the world do you think your average person could?
You know what? Fuck you, just fuck you.
I had a pet Rottweiler that was the most lovable thing on 4 legs, and the only threat SHE posed was ruining someone’s clothes with saliva.
Do you know WHY she was that way? Because as a puppy, I took her everywhere it was legally possible for me to do so, and in downtown Chicago, this included some crowded bars, stores, outdoor restaurants, and off-lead dog parks. A responsible dog owner makes sure their puppy is exposed to all situations, to socialize it.
I also spent well over 3 grand in dog training with her. Puppy “Kindergarten” classes, basic obedience, advanced obedience, we even started on cart training. A responsible owner trains their dog and trains them well.
You don’t even have to go to a fancy dog school like I did, even places like PetSmart and local community classes have very inexpensive basic training programs. If you can’t afford to take your dog for training, you cannot afford to own a dog, period.
My Rott also went through the CGC Certification test, and passed it with flying colors.
But you want to say I, or many other dog owners with large dogs like me, shouldn’t own the dogs we own, because they’re dangerous. Fuck you.
Absolutely not, and I defy you to show one instance where I did. I think all dog owners should be responsible for training and socializing their dog, and knowing the breed before purchasing it, and being responsible to not buy the breed if it is not a breed that will fit well in their lifestyle.
Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen. Responsible owners are willing to follow guidelines for ownership, such as requiring a CGC, registration of the breed, etc, keeping it on-lead except designated “off-lead” areas like a fenced dog park.
Irresponsible owners won’t do any of that. They also won’t care if you ban their breed-of-the-moment, because they’ll just get a different kind of big, aggressive dog and raise it to be the same danger.
Which bring us back to the point some of us have been making all along. Banning specific breeds is NOT the answer. Banning irresponsible dog ownership IS.
And furthermore, even if you do institute a wide-spread Pit/Rott ban…it still won’t matter. You’ll be having this exact same argument about the new “popular scary dog” in a couple years.
My bet is you’ll be talking the same talk about the Fila Brasileiro, the Cane Corso, or the Presa Canario. Possibly even the Dogo Argentino.
All of em are rising in popularity in the US. Rottweiler and Pit Bull numbers, however have been falling, Rottweilers in particular, rather steadily for the last 5 years.
But like you said and I said 200 posts a go, there is no political will to “ban irresponsible owners”. No political will to engage some mandatory licensing- which I also mentioned on page one. The only thing acceptable is steeper punishment for fuckups- the current used/failing model. So because we are so afraid of taking away a subsection of dogs from common ownership the only solution is nothing or more of the same.
Wow, this is still going. BTW Red, I am a dog owner and femail and I didn’t say I advocated banning specific breeds, I said that those breeds have been banned from being imported into my country. How the government decided on these specific breeds, I do not know - but they were all specified as dogs bred specifically for dog-fighting I think.
Only time will tell what kind of a difference (if any) this will make.
Whilst I understand the arguements for not banning - I also cannot see how else to control dangerous dog owners. We can control access to specific dogs by removing them - be that a stop-gap measure. Like I said in response to Muffins experiences with the low socioeconomic areas, registration and owner education (as anti-banners advocate) doesn’t work with irresponsible dog owners. We already have both these things in place (although owner education is not compulsory). Also, the SPCA and dog control can take dogs away, but owners just replace them. Taking people to court (which is expensive) may result in a very pathetic fine and possibly the banning of owning a dog for a few years - which doesn’t seem to be a deterant.
I’m pretty sure we focus on controlling the dogs, because controlling the owners is way beyond us. A dangerous dog can be removed but a dangerous dog owner cannot.
So you’d rather institute laws that demonstrably won’t work, just so you can pat yourself on the back and say “look, we tried!” Even though said law will harm some (small) number of law-abiding citizens, you’d rather screw them over than try to actually fix anything.
As long as morons institute worthless, feel-good laws instead of real solutions, there won’t be any political will to work on methods that will actually fix the problem. So you’re making the problem worse, not better.
Schmuck!
Cite?
I don’t understant this attitude at all.
First of all, taking people to court is expensive? Doesn’t the fine include the cost of taking them to court?
Secondly, if the fine is pathetic, who is to blame for that? Obviously, the government for not enforcing their own laws.
Thirdly, “controlling the owners is way beyond us”??? So we are giving up on crime now? We are willing to punish (even kill) the dog because of the actions of the owner? To what other crime do we say that? “Oh, we haven’t been able to keep people from speeding, so let’s just stop enforcing the laws.” Or go the other way and put speed governors on cars.
If you want government to enforce their own laws, put pressure on the government. Get people who think the same way as you to petition your councilman or local representative to strengthen the enforcement.
A hefty fine can be a pretty strong deterrent if it is enforced. If the city government can threaten to jail me if I fail to pay the fine for a noisy muffler, they can certainly do the same for an irresponsible dog owner.
MelCthefirst - my apologies for both errors. I misread your posts, and I’ll try to remember your gender. 
I don’t understand how an import ban can be effective, unless you’ve already got some means of keeping people from breeding their own and/or bringing in crossbreeds. Can you give me more details?
If taking dogs away from irresponsible owners won’t solve the problem (because they just get new dogs), then how will taking banned dogs away solve the problem, when they’ll just get new dogs of a different breed (and that’s only if you’ve somehow managed to kill off all the pits already in your country)?
I do understand the frustrations of policing people who have little to no respect for the law - it’s a never-ending, unwinnable battle. But you’re not really changing any of that with a breed ban, you’re just moving the lines a couple of feet over and pretending that you’ve accomplished something.
The problem is that fines are pathetic and punishments short-term. Work to change the laws so that they have some real teeth and then enforce them.
Post 193. If you can’t bother to read my posts, I’m sure as hell not going to repeat 'em for you.
The Ontario public have raised a red flag concerning dangerous dogs, which they perceive to be pit bulls.
There are already laws that deal with dangerous dog owners after their dogs have attacked. There are no laws, aside from municipal license and leash by-laws, that are pro-active.
The government wishes to become more pro-active so as to meet the public’s concern.
It costs a lot of money to establish and keep in place a regulatory system, and it costs a lot of money to enforce matters through the courts. The Ontario government is responding as best it can in a financially responsible manner by not putting in force a highly complex series of regulations and then attempting to enforce such regulations, and instead making a blanket ban.
What it comes down to is that if the government goes ahead with a ban, it is because it does not consider the existence of a particular type of dog to be worth the cost of regulation and enforcement when compared with a far less expensive blanket ban.
With that in mind, if the government was willing to put in place such a regulatory and enforcement scheme that permitted the owning of dangerous dog breeds in certain tightly controlled circumstances, on the condition that owners of such breeds must fully pay for the cost of such a regulatory and enforcement scheme, what do you thing owners of such breeds would be willing to pay each year for a license for each dog of such a breed?
Furthermore, with an annual license well over a couple of grand, the low end folks in the crappy end of town who are bad dog owners certainly would not pay, leaving the cost of enforcement against them to be paid by the remaining responsible owners of dangerous dogs. The couple of grand per year would grow significantly higher. Would dangerous dog owners be willing to pay several thousand dollars per year to keep their dogs? Frankly, aside from the odd one here or there, I doubt it. If a strict regulatory and enforcement scheme were to be put in place, it would end up falling to the general public to pay for it. Well guess what – the public is not interested in funding an expensive scheme for the benefit of a relatively small number of dog owners when it is relatively simple and cost effective to ban dangerous dogs.
And for a less smart ass answer and to sum up (for my own purposes, as mentioned this is actual legislation being discussed in my province):
I agree substantially with the facts/points raised by anti-breed specific bans. I am just less swayed as to how much they negate the usefulness of a ban.
I agree that dog-fighters may switch to a cosmetically different breed. I agree that wannabe tough guy owners will switch breeds. I just think that will take time. That’s why my first choice would be a temporary ban (grandfathering current dogs) in order to get proper ownership licensing in place- I don’t see my first choice happening unfortunately. If a long term ban is put in place I would advocate in the near future the availability of special permits for breeding/owning the “banned” breeds; I would hope if that happened Rott/Pit ownership could serve as a positive model for ALL dog ownership in the future.
And to emphasize Muffin’s point: I love dogs. I know you love dogs and clearly hold certain breeds close to your heart redtail23 so this may be hard for you to believe but: as far as “where does the ban end?” general society wouldn’t even blink if they banned every breed that looked remotely like a Pit.
Speaking of which - where are YOUR cites, my friend?
Where is one, single, solitary cite showing that a breed ban will work?
Not just repeating endlessly “oh, we know these are bad, dangerous dogs, so making them go away will obviously help”, because you haven’t shown any such thing.
You’ve stated that breed-bans have been implemented in many locations - where’s your evidence that they work?
As was pointed out earlier in the thread most breed specific bans are fairly recent and finding stats either way online seems a problem. You are the one who said my position was “demonstrably false”. I did not say your position was such.
My thinking is that since certain breeds are overrepresented in the injury/fatality rates relative to their ownership rates it logically follows that restricting those breeds will lower injury/fatality rates. I don’t claim or think it would be a 1:1 ratio or some perfect fix. As Cerri noted the explosion of Rottweiler popularity in the 80’s is definately a mitigating point. The Ontario government seems to agree as they haven’t placed Rotties on the hit list.
I’m not sure of the rationale behind the breed import banning - I’m assuming it is so that those breeds already in the country will have to be cross-bred, weakening the aggression?? Some of the arguements already put forward here also indicate that people want these breeds only for fighting purposes, they don’t want to use any other breeds - thus eliminating the number in circulation?
We do work to change laws, it just seems that it hasn’t been working, instead, dog attacks make people want to control the dogs more (not the people) because, like I said, this is easier than controlling the people ie muzzle laws, less off-leash areas etc. Larger fines don’t deter dangerous owners etc etc. However, removing the supposedly dangerous breeds, does change something, if only for a short time. (I’m not saying this is good or bad).
MisterThy: I’m pretty sure that the Lawyer’s fees are not included in the court costs, as per news articles on SPCA trying to prosecute offenders.
The fines have gradually increased, but like I said above, this doesn’t seem to be a deterant. (We possibly don’t put people in jail as easily as in the US for non-payment of fines).
I’m not suggesting we give up trying to control bad owners, just that it is not working and thus, controlling the dogs is easier. This country, and I’m pretty sure yours too, has a history of destroying wayward dogs in farming areas - is this not punishing the dog for the owners lack of action?
Muffin has some interesting points.
Muffin, welcome back!
So are you willing to answer any of the questions in post 166 , or are you too just going to pretend they never got asked?
How about any of the questions I asked MelCthefirst in post 210?
BTW, I read the CDC’s opinion long before you posted it. If you try reading the first page you’ll see I was the first to link to them.
And we’ve provided numerous cites from reputable sources explaining why bans won’t work, as well as at least one cite giving factual evidence that bans didn’t work for exactly those reasons.
In other words, I haven’t just said that your opinion was demonstrably false, I’ve proven it.
You haven’t provided squat. Put up or shut up, bucko.