Have a look at this. Brought a tear to my eyes. SHOCKWAVE
asdfgh: nice piece of work. Think it will do any good here?
MelCthefirst: Yeah, yeah, I did. And I admit I got a bit carried away (that’s what I get for posting while my brain is full of snot: oral-rhea :p). However, have you noticed that, despite the fact that it’s been repeatedly explained that breed-banning won’t solve the problem, why breed-banning won’t solve the problem, and with cites to back that up, the topic keeps returning to “well, why don’t we just ban this breed”? It was probably pretty silly of me to join in beating my head against that wall, but like I said, I’m not entirely in my right mind at the moment. Besides, I was answering CarnalK’s questions, which IMO were pretty much an obvious setup for yet another round of “let’s ban these breeds because they’re inherently problematic”, so that was what I addressed.
CarnalK, you mean except for the fact that it’s not going to actually stop 30% of dog attacks, because the people that keep problem dogs will just move on to another breed (or ignore the law entirely), while the majority of people and dogs punished by the bans are those that aren’t causing problems? Is it ridiculous to try something that’s already been shown to not solve the problem, simply because it’s an easy, no-brain, no-work “solution” that keeps politicians and law enforcement from having to actually work on this? Yup, I think so. If, contrary to the thread title, solving the problem is the actual topic here, then why does the discussion keep returning to this one refuted idea, instead of discussing actual, you know, solutions?
Short-term solutions: be sure that your location has effective animal-control ordinances in place. Leash laws, licensing requirements, abuse and neglect laws, laws that cover dogs attacking other animals, as well as people. Push to have the penalties increased, whether fines, community service, jail, removal of animals, whatever. Push to include loss of the right to keep any animals for repeat offenders. Most importantly, insist that the laws be strictly enforced. Hold your local officials, animal control and law enforcement responsible to do their jobs.
Oh yeah, that’s all been said (and ignored) before in this thread too. Time for another spate of “I know, this’ll fix it - we’ll ban pitbulls!”
Oh well, how 'bout those Sox? Pretty amazing, eh?
What redtail23 said.
This debate has been quite an eye opener. Here I was thinking that most people when they here stories like the one Muffin posted about the pit bull attacking the old lady’s dog, with the pit bull owner then attacking the old lady, they would say, “OMG, something has got to be done about these types of bad people!” Now I realize that there is a sizable minority of people who will say, “OMG, something has got to be done about these bad dogs!” So how do you talk to people who refuse to see the real problem.
I wish I could wave a wand, and give them the ban they want, if only the show them error of their ways. The paradox is: if they don’t see the obvious problem now, why would they see it later?
When the ban doesn’t work, it’s not like they will admit they were wrong. They won’t finally admit that it is the aggressive dog owner mentality that is the problem. They will claim that the ban didn’t go far enough or that more dogs need to be banned.
When it only addresses the symptoms and not the real problem, yes it is ridiculous! The “I don’t know if it’ll work or not, but it couldn’t hurt” mentality is ridulous.
- OMG, apparently there is a subculture of society that likes to take Japanese imports and “tune” them to have a lot of horsepower. Get this… they then race them illegally on the streets, go way over the speed limit and sometimes get into accidents with fatalities.
- That is terrible. What we need to do is ban Honda Civics. I am sure that will put and end to that problem.
- But what if they just move on to a different brand of car? What if the real problem is the mentality of the street racer?
- I don’t know, but it isn’t ridiculous to try.
The idea simply hasn’t been refuted. I see people crying about dog rights, bad owners, and how people might get around the laws. That’s not refuted. Noone is saying a ban is a panacea so your objections are fucking noted.
I just don’t get it - why the attachment to this idea? I understand that, on the surface, it seems like a quick & easy fix. What I don’t understand is why people are so devoted to it that they’ll repeatedly ignore all evidence to the contrary. I’m asking seriously here, I truly don’t understand the disconnect.
CarnalK, MelCthefirst, anyone - Since you advocate breed-banning as a solution to dog attacks, can you please answer the simple question repeatedly asked already: which dogs are you going to ban?
Pitbulls? Rottweilers? Dobermans? German Shepherds? (All breeds which have, at various times, undergone the “ban 'em!” routine.)
Labradors? Chow chows? Collies? St. Bernards? Newfoundlands? Airedales? Chihuahuas? Mastiffs?
With cross-breeds, how much “bad dog” is too much? 50%? 25%? 1 drop?
And who gets to decide just what a mutt is made of? Citizens panicked by rumors of killer breeds? Neighbors feuding over other issues that decide to use breed-bans for revenge (a tactic not uncommon around here with code enforcement)? Police officers? Judges? City officials? Animal control? Veterinarians? Please note that the first five generally don’t have any specific knowledge in this area, the next-to-last may or may not know anything about dog breeds, and the latter will tell you there’s no sure method to determine parentage, they’re just guessing.
What happens when the owner denies that his unregistered dog is breed “X”? How does one prove/disprove this?
Will you switch to banning by characteristics? All dogs over 75 pounds? Over 50 pounds? Over 20 pounds? By height? By color? By head-shape? By body-type?
Since you seem convinced that this is a valid methodology, can you please give some specifics of how it would work?
Also, if the ban doesn’t work due to the problems previously mentioned, will you just extend it to include the new “dangerous breeds”?
Redtail, since you are pressing the slippery slope argument, please take a minute to realize that no one is suggesting that a dangerous dog ban will solve all the problems, but rather that it will only reduce some of the more violent attacks.
If you insist that any action must be completely successfull at preventing all dog bites, then fair enough, let’s keep banning breeds until it is safe for people to walk the streets and relax in their own yards. If that requires banning all dangerous dogs, then so be it.
[QUOTE=Muffin… If that requires banning all dangerous dogs, then so be it.[/QUOTE]
Redtail’s point and it’s a valid one, is that any dog can be “dangerous” if bred that way. Fifteen pounds of crazy dog can be as dangerous as 50 pounds, to a child or an unprepared adult.
However, most people who chose “dangerous” dogs are lazy and stupid. The reason they chose pits, is because there is a readily available stock of “bad” dogs, for the cheap and it’s easy to stroke up the aggression…but once again we’re talking about generations of dogs that have been breed on the streets for this.
Labs haven’t. Mastifs haven’t. Dobie’s haven’t. Not like the pits have. Again I agree that ANY dog has the potential to become aggressive; but that trait has to be bred into certain breeds and it’s easier to do with some than others.
I don’t see the type of owners that we’re talking about doing that. They lack the ability, the resources and quite frankly the drive; to say create a “bad” breed of labs. As they would have to fight the previous generations of breeding to create relatively docile dogs.
It’s not gonna happen, not with these knuckle-heads. Who are too lazy to put up a fence.
Sorry, my mistake. I meant to revise that last question to this:
Also, if the ban doesn’t achieve the expected results (e.g., the 30% figure previously discussed, or something similar) due to the problems previously mentioned (i.e. popular breed switching), will you just extend it to include the new “dangerous breeds”?
I’m not taking your argument to be that a ban will eliminate all problems. I’m advancing the argument that a ban is neither an effective nor efficient method even for a partial solution, because it is inherently flawed.
I have no problem whatsoever with “banning all dangerous dogs”. The question lies in how that phrase is defined. How do you identify “dangerous dogs”? Which is why I’m still waiting for y’all’s answer to that question.
I think that there are two fairly easily solutions to this problem:
1.) Since any dog over x pounds is potentially dangerous, and it’s not possible to tell from a puppy whether the dog will get to a dangerous size or not, ban all dogs, except for those people who need them (the handicapped, the blind, police, and maybe a few other fairly easily to recognize groups)
-Rationale: why let people own something dangerous to others if they don’t need it? Want a companion?–get a cat!
or
2.) Require that all dog owners be licensed. And that all dogs (and owners) go to an accredidated obedience/safety course.
-Rationale: if the problem is really just ignorant owners, let’s edumacate them.
p.s. Question: why is it legal for people to allow their dogs to bark at passerbys on public property?
May I ask how old you are? You evidently don’t remember the days, a couple decades or so ago, when the exact, same arguments were used as the reason why Dobermans should be banned. They were ‘bred to be vicious’, ‘bred as attack dogs’, blah blah blah, same old same old. And now you’re advocating the ban of another breed and defending Dobies as NOT a “bad” breed. The mind boggles.
Mastiffs were bred for hunting large game and as weapons, as well as pit-fighting dogs; there is some evidence that they are already in line to be the next “dangerous breed” (you remember the SF case a little while back where the lady was killed by the mastiffs she was keeping for some guy in prison?). Bulldogs and bullterriers were bred to be fighting dogs. Most herding dogs were bred for a certain level of “aggressive” behavior, because that behavior was required in some situations in order to do their work. Dobermans were bred as police, military, and guard dogs. Akitas were bred as fighting dogs. Any of those dogs, as well as hundreds of other breeds, could easily be bred into “bad” dogs. A dog generation, for an unscrupulous breeder, is 6 months. In five years, you can have “generations of dogs that have been breed on the streets for this”.
Those “lazy and stupid” people that currently own dangerous pits are the exact same sort of lazy and stupid people that used to own dangerous Rotties, and before that, dangerous Dobies, and before that… They’re the exact same sort of lazy and stupid people that will probably buy Mastiffs when fashions (or laws) change.
What sort of knuckle-head do you think breeds fighting pits today? Have you ever seen these guys? Do you think it takes some great intellect to toss an in-heat bitch and a stud in a pen together? Almost everyone understands the idea of “breed game dogs to get game dogs and dump the ones that aren’t what you want”.
Idiots breed dogs in this country every day. Worthless idiots breed dogs for money in this country every day. Scum-sucking idiots breed dogs for fighting in this country (although fortunately not as many as used to). A great deal of my personal animus towards registering clubs stems directly from the things I witnessed and heard about at an emergency vet’s, directly related to this topic.
Gah!! Hello?? [tap][tap][tap] Hello??? Is this thing on??? I know you’re out there, I can hear you soughing!
What you said is true, but you forget those people aren’t the only ones who fight dogs. You have the professional guys who make a nice bit of change on the side, or their entire income fighting dogs. Don’t think for a second that those guys are lazy. They train their dogs on homemade treadmills, give them specialized diets and I think I saw that some are giving their dogs anabolic steroids. These are the guys that the knuckle-head you mentioned, look up to and try to emulate.
What would a ban do to them? Not much. What they already do is illegal with stiffer penalties. Might as well threaten bank robbers with speeding tickets.
It will probably raise the price of pit bulls. People with ‘good’ dogs will probably have their dogs stolen and used as practice animals, because at that point it will be too expensive to have pit bulls practice on pit bulls.
The experts are constantly tweaking the blood lines, they might mix in a little bit of Chow Chow. All of a sudden you will have pit bulls with rough coats, but can’t be identified as pit bulls.
Yes! Thank you!! NOW we’re making some progress! Sounds like a terrific idea to me.
Longer-term solutions (as it will take time to get such laws implemented):
All dogs must be licensed. To get a license for a dog, it must have current vet records, be sterilized, and have passed an accredited Canine Citizen test of some sort.
All dog owners must be licensed. To get a license to own a dog, you must be able to pass a test proving basic knowledge about dogs (feeding, care, behaviour, etc.). If you wish to own certain registered breeds, you must pass a test proving basic awareness of the breed, including problem tendencies/behaviours, and how to handle them.
Failure to control your dog in any situation may be penalized by fines, community service, etc. Repeated or egregious offenses will result in the seizure of the animal. Continued offenses will result in permanent loss of your license to own dogs. Harm to other animals, people, or property resulting from such failure makes you liable for civil and criminal prosecution.
Mistreatment, neglect or abuse of dogs results in immediate seizure of the animal and loss of your license, in addition to criminal prosecution.
Keeping unlicensed dogs, or keeping dogs without being licensed, subject to heavy penalties (fines and jailtime) and strictly enforced.
I’ll put serious money down that, if you get these sorts of laws passed and enforced in your community, the “dangerous dog” problem will abate right quick.
On the bright side, once these were in place and accepted (i.e., “bad dogs” - individuals, not breeds - were no longer tolerated), we could easily move towards the European style, where dogs are routinely accepted in public places they can’t go in this country.
P.S. Answer - (a) Because barking isn’t usually dangerous behaviour, just annoying; (b) Because it can be really, really difficult to keep all dogs from barking forever; (c) Because the current culture finds it entirely acceptable for people to own annoying nuisances and that ‘nothing can be done’ because any person has an absolute right to own/keep/breed dogs, no matter how poorly they do so.
archmichael - you seem to know scary amounts about the fighting trade! I’m afraid to ask. 
There are many social problems that are never solved. We pass laws and allocate resources to keep them at socially acceptable levels. The fact that we can never “win” doesn’t mean that we give up and stop attacking the problem. When they get out of control, we pass new laws and/or devote additional resources to law enforcement. It is usually a reactive and imperfect process.
RedTail: I agree completely with all of the points mentioned - once you put a license in it’s really easy to change the regulation involved in keeping said license.
So how come my neighbors dog can bark, but I can’t play my music loud? I’ve heard of such things as bark collars - but I’m not sure I can condone putting something on a dog that might hurt it. I don’t like dogs, but I don’t like to see them hurt either…
The burden of having to know your enemy. I know far too much about dog fighting, clitoradectomies (female genital mutilation), serial killers, child sex slavery. I’m sure there are some more. If I let it all come out, I would be a real life Debbie Downer
(If you don’t watch SNL, it’s a character who constantly spouts factoids killing the festive mood)
Absolutely. I’m simply opposed to passing useless and harmful laws and allocating resources to them, when there are better solutions available.
Peligro - I don’t have a good answer. Check your local ordinances - nuisance barking (i.e., continual barking or extremely loud barking) is often an offense, sometimes even under noise ordinances. It’s dealt with on an individual basis, because not all dogs do this. Almost any dog will bark on some occasions, or under some circumstances - are you complaining about dogs barking at all, or barking to the point of driving you nuts? I can empathize - I’ve just had a new neighbor move in next door who owns a barker. I can even tell you why the dog barks - she’s left alone all day, in an empty back yard. She’s at least part border collie - a very intelligent, high-energy, high-attention type of dog. She’s bored stiff, so she runs around barking her fool head off all the time. My partner’s been bribing her with dogbones, trying to get her to at least listen when we tell her to be quiet. There’s just not much else I can do, unless I want to file a complaint - and I haven’t yet reached that level of irritation.
<g> I’ve seen that skit once, pretty funny. You sound like a dedicated individual. Nice to meet you.
If none of the pro-ban crowd will come back to answer my questions, maybe I’ll put together & post my ideas on the elimination of puppy mills? They could seriously use some critique and refining, and it seems like I might have a good chance at that here.
The thing is that it’s not a particularly harmful law. Very few people own fighting dogs and many who do are not mental patients/professional dog-fighters who simply MUST have a specific breed.
Banning dogs bred & physically adapted to fighting/killing from populated areas is no crazier an idea than banning bear or bob cat ownership.
I can’t believe this thread won’t just die. You may as well ban all dogs, as any dog may bite sooner or later, under the right conditions. It looks like the ban happy people are not willing to acccept anything less. Ban pitbulls, bull terriers, mastiffs, chows, German Shepherds, St. Bernards, Dobies, ban everything. Keep “downsizing” the weight limit until even toy poodles are outlawed (they bite too). That makes as much sense as selecting just one breed. Why is it, every time there is a perceived problem, the answer is to ban or outlaw something else?