The ignorance continues...

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
I think that people's views of pill bulls are "skewed" by reality.

How many pitbulls have you lived with? I'm just curious as to what your reality is? Is it what you hear on the news? Or statistics that don't address why the owners were irresponsible enough to let their dogs off leashes or behave the way they do?

Or is your reality like mine, having lived with several Staffordshire terriers and mixes thereof and done tons of volunenteer work with abandoned ones. That's my reality and I have only ever seen one Staffordshire who struck me as aggressive or mean. Turned out he had a tumor and was in excruciating pain. I can't tell if he would have been mean without the tumor, because sadly, the poor thing was inoperable and put down.

That's my reality.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by EsmeraldaX
See my post below.

You are now required to muzzle your dog in public. A good muzzle costs $$ and is not always the most comfortable experience for the dog. Otherwise, you can not take your dog out for a walk. Why should someone who knows how to restrain their dog, esp. when the dog is friendly and well trained as is my neice's dog, have to be told that THEY have to do this, yet someone with a golden retriever does not?

All Pit Bulls in Boston have to be spayed/neutered. So if you are a caring and honest breeder, who breeds pit bulls for a nice temperment, or for shows, and you have been living here your whole life, you now either have to move or discontinue breeding. Just because some idiots inbreed the same breed to be nasty. That is so disgustingly wrong that I can barely even think about it. The hope is probably that if they aren't bred, eventually the breed will be wiped out.

You have to have a beware of dog sign on your property. Other dog owners are not required to do this. I don't like that the government can just tell people with one type of pet that they HAVE to put a sign up. Either make all dog owners put up a sign, or don't make any. People can put a sign up if they want to.

Failure to comply will result in fines.

Personally, I can't see the purpose of perpetuating a breed that may have an inherent flaw. I don't think anyone will cry if pit bulls become "extinct". Frankly, I don't think that what happens within the city limits of Boston is going to impact the breed significantly. The dogs are bred for aggressiveness and putting up a sign to warn others seems like the least these owners can do.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
For statistical purposes, I would think that is pretty much irrelevant. I don't see this as being different than "punishing" people with pools or trampolines with higher insurance rates. When a significant number of people screw up, it costs everyone else in that category, whether they are screw-ups or not.

That just goes to show how stats can say whatever you want them to. If I were to gather stats based on how many pit bull incidents involved careless, abusive owners, I guarantee you that number would be high.

Well I think it's a scary thing. In the USA you are supposed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty. MA just passed this law that contradicts that. My dog or your dog or your friends dogs could be next.

 

[AirForceRocks]

That's my reality.

And it would seem that statistically, your reality is the exception.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by EsmeraldaX
How many pitbulls have you lived with? I'm just curious as to what your reality is? Is it what you hear on the news? Or statistics that don't address why the owners were irresponsible enough to let their dogs off leashes or behave the way they do?

.

I am proud to say that I haven't, nor would I ever live with any pit bulls. I have seen very nice pit bulls in obedience classes but I would bet that it is by far, the minority that brings their pit bulls to obedience classes. In fact, I would guess that many dog owners of all breeds quit obedience after puppy school. fStatistics on the frequency and severity of the dog bite really speaks for itself. Again, I will revert back to Howie Carr's quote;
Not all pit bull owners are drug dealers but it seems that all drug dealers own pit bulls".

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
Personally, I can't see the purpose of perpetuating a breed that may have an inherent flaw. I don't think anyone will cry if pit bulls become "extinct". Frankly, I don't think that what happens within the city limits of Boston is going to impact the breed significantly. The dogs are bred for aggressiveness and putting up a sign to warn others seems like the least these owners can do.

Dawn, how many dog breeders do you know???

There are idiotic people who breed pb's for aggresive traits. They are not professional breeders and have no business breeding.

There are also A LOT of people who love Pb's (american stafforshire terriers) and breed them for their fun loving yet protective nature. They only sell their pups to good homes where they have checked the people to make sure they are not going to use the dogs to fight. Or they breed them for their handsome looks as show dogs. My neices dog was bred for temperment and color.

There is a 12 year old girl I love dearly who would in fact cry her eyes out if Nika (her dog) was suddently extinct. And I think her 4 year old sister would agree.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
And it would seem that statistically, your reality is the exception.

Not at all. Check the statistics by searching police records for "dog bites" and figure out the statistics compared to the numbers of dogs of each breed registered by the AKC. Percentage wise, you will find Am. Staffs are not as likely to bite as Cockers and Retrievers.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
And it would seem that statistically, your reality is the exception.

Perhaps because I look at the causes of the statistics. Sorry, took psychology in college for 6 years and many classes on how stats work. Stats don't sway me.

 

[AirForceRocks]

If I were to gather stats based on how many pit bull incidents involved careless, abusive owners, I guarantee you that number would be high.

And I'm sure that if I were to gather stats based on how many drownings in home swimming pools involved careless owners, that number would be high as well. But that doesn't change the fact that statistically, having a pool is high risk and so will cost the homeowner more. Same with pit bulls. The individual pool (or dog) is not the issue - it is the overall rate of incidents that determine what measures will be taken to protect the greatest percentage of the population.

Your best bet is to work to get the people that voted for these measures out of office. Run candidates against them that oppose the new measures. If your candidates win, then the people will have spoken, and the law will be changed. If not, then it will be apparent that most people want these protective measures in place, and everyone will just have to deal with it.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by EsmeraldaX
That just goes to show how stats can say whatever you want them to. If I were to gather stats based on how many pit bull incidents involved careless, abusive owners, I guarantee you that number would be high.

Well I think it's a scary thing. In the USA you are supposed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty. MA just passed this law that contradicts that. My dog or your dog or your friends dogs could be next.

I would guess that many pit bull incidents do involve careless, abusive owners and that number is high, and I would also guess that your description fits the description of the majority of pit bull owners.
With regards to "innocent until proven guilty". Dogs don't have rights and are not guarenteed equal protection under the law.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Perhaps because I look at the causes of the statistics.

And again, when it comes to the protection of the public at large, the causes are irrelevant. If the risks are high, and they apparently are, then protective measures need to be taken. If the people don't want those protective measures, they'll vote out the legislators that enacted them.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

And the "reality" in our area is that far more Golden Retrievers are responsible for reported dog bites than ANY OTHER BREED.

and that would be because statistically Golden Retrievers are one of the most popular breed of dogs and in most areas there are far, far more Golden's than Pit Bulls. Golden's are also the #1 dog pet choice of families with children and children are far more likely to be bitten by a dog than adults. Bites given to children are also far more likely to be reported.

Sorry, I am not a huge fan of Pit Bulls for many reasons. I am well aware that there are responsible owner's of Pit Bulls out there. However I have to agree that the breed has genetic tendencies that tend to make it vicious and at times uncontrollable.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

So what you are saying is responsible dog owners have no rights? I'm sorry but I can not agree with that.

And I plan to try and get these people out of office. This decision was not popular with animal lovers around here from what I'm hearing.

I just think it will be intersting to see if the morons (as I like to call the people who buy pb's to train them to attack) suddenly go out and start doing the same with a different breed. And when they run out of "mean" breeds and move on to a usually "nice" breed...

Should be interesting to hear people's reactions when it's golden retrievers being banned.

 

[AirForceRocks]

So what you are saying is responsible dog owners have no rights?

Of course you have rights - as far as I can see, no one is telling you that you can't own a pit bull. But your right to own a dog, any kind of dog, without restriction or regulation just doesn't exist. If pit bulls are the breed that are doing most of the attacking in your area, regardless of the cause, then of course pit bulls are going to be the ones that are regulated. And since it's doubtful that anyone is going to step up and say "It's me, I'm one of the irresponsible owners" it's just a fact of life that all pit bull owners will have to "suffer" the consequences, small though they may be.

Should be interesting to hear people's reactions when it's golden retrievers being banned.

OK, I'm confused again - I thought you said that pit bulls weren't being banned?

 

[TerriP]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
Personally, I can't see the purpose of perpetuating a breed that may have an inherent flaw. I don't think anyone will cry if pit bulls become "extinct".

<treading lightly here as I'm not "into" debating>

Given this line of thought...what breed will be next? Who gets to decide what is an "inherent flaw"? There are lots of breeds I don't care for, do I get to decide that they have an "inherent flaw" and ban the breeding of them, thus banishing them into extinction? (I know that's a leap since banning the breeding of these dogs in Boston alone will *not* lead to extinction...but it is the first step)

I think Poodles are among the ugliest creation I've ever seen...can we get rid of them next? Seriously, being ugly is not as serious an offence as biting...but where do we draw the line? I see a "vicious" dog across the lawn, he/she may or may not bite me...but if I *see* an ugly Poodle...I've already been offended! This "logic" is insane.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Of course you have rights - as far as I can see, no one is telling you that you can't own a pit bull. But your right to own a dog, any kind of dog, without restriction or regulation just doesn't exist. If pit bulls are the breed that are doing most of the attacking in your area, regardless of the cause, then of course pit bulls are going to be the ones that are regulated. And since it's doubtful that anyone is going to step up and say "It's me, I'm one of the irresponsible owners" it's just a fact of life that all pit bull owners will have to "suffer" the consequences, small though they may be.



OK, I'm confused again - I thought you said that pit bulls weren't being banned?

They may as well ban them, as they are making their quality of life pretty bad.

 

[Talking Hands]

Pit bulls are banned in my county. You may not have a pit bull. THis doesn't stop people from getting them but if you are caught you must take it out of the county or animal control will take it and have it destroyed.
Unfortunately down here the pit bull is bred to be a fighting animal. They can not be trusted as a pet.
As far as insurance, dog bites are excluded. That is all breeds not just the ones that are considered biters.
Most people are not willing to pay the money for having their dogs trained. It cost us $600 to get our labador retriever trained and she went through good neighbor training as well. Do I regret the cost. Not a bit!
Iti s unfortunate but laws are made to the lowest common denominator. No, good, responsible owners don't have any more rights than the bad, irresponsible owner. We are stuck with lows to control those who are not responsible.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by TerriP
[B

I think Poodles are among the ugliest creation I've ever seen...can we get rid of them next? Seriously, being ugly is not as serious an offence as biting...but where do we draw the line? I see a "vicious" dog across the lawn, he/she may or may not bite me...but if I *see* an ugly Poodle...I've already been offended! This "logic" is insane. [/B]

You answered your own question; its a matter of temperment not esthectics. With regard to the "possibility" of poodles being banned for their appearance, it would never happen. Poodles would organize and form their own PAC (Poodles the superior breed) and outlaw humans. They will also lobby to be allowed to ride only in the front seat of the car and reruns of the Westminster Dog Show aired weekly. So I would be careful about the irreverent comments directed to poodles.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Okey, so now I want someone to tell me WHAT is a "Pit Bull"? If you are going to ban a breed, it better BE a breed. Is it a Stafforshire or American Staffordshire? You wil find a lot of folks who can't really identify a nebulous term of "pit bull". It is like saying all black and red dogs are Rottweilers!

 

[AirForceRocks]

As far as insurance, dog bites are excluded. That is all breeds not just the ones that are considered biters.

Perhaps where you live, but it is not that way in every state. In many states, insurance companies can and do refuse to issue homeowner's policies for certain breeds of dogs. In other states, insurance companies can charge higher premiums for dogs on the "bad dog" list. We own a home that we rent out, and our company has a "bad dog" list that results in increased premiums, so we don't rent to families that own one of those breeds of dog.