Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Punishing Pit Bulls or People?

  1. #1

    Default Punishing Pit Bulls or People?

    Editorial: Punishing pit bulls or people?
    Friday, Jan 21 2011, 5:36 pm
    A Star editorial

    Government has a knack for using tragedy to justify tyranny.

    Deranged gunmen open fire on innocent victims and lawmakers restrict responsible citizens’ Second Amendment rights. Would-be terrorists smuggle explosives onto commercial air flights, so travelers endure body scans and patdowns.

    In Shelby, the City Council might consider placing restrictions on pit bull owners in response to the tragic mauling in Waxhaw last week that took the life of a 5-year-old girl. Councilman Joel Shores has recommended that the board examine pit bull-specific animal ordinances that he believes would help protect children from aggressive dogs.

    Shores said some North Carolina cities require pit bull owners to muzzle the dogs when walking them on a leash, set rules for the size and type of cage they must be kept in and even make residents buy liability insurance in order to own pit bulls. While these rules stop short of an outright ban on the breed, they still interfere with private property rights and penalize responsible dog owners for others’ failings.

    The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a study on human deaths from dog bites in 2000 and concluded that the data didn’t support increased regulation of specific breeds.

    “Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues,” concludes a CDC report on the study. “Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs.”

    Prince George’s County, Md., spends more than a quarter-million dollars each year to enforce its pit bull ban, but a 2003 county study showed that “public safety is not improved” and “there is no transgression committed by owner or animal that is not covered by another, non-breed-specific portion of the Animal Control Code,” according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

    The ASPCA opposes breed-specific legislation because the laws “have a tendency to compromise rather than enhance public safety.” The restrictions shift animal control officers’ focus away from behavior and enforcement of leash, licensing and anti-tethering laws and onto the arbitrary breed-specific rules, the group says on its website.

    While pit bulls, Rottweilers and other large-breed dogs have a protective nature and can be prone to aggression, nearly any domestic animal is capable of attack. Responsible owners can raise the dogs to be loving and affectionate, and it’s not fair to burden them with more restrictions because other dog owners elsewhere have trained their pets to be vicious.

    Perhaps the best dog bite deterrent would be criminal negligence laws and severe penalties for dog owners who fail to prevent unprovoked attacks on other people. Instead of placing a burden on all pet owners, these laws would target only the irresponsible ones. If an owner knows he could go to jail when his dog mauls a small child, he’ll be more likely to take preventative measures.

    Not one of the new laws mentioned as a possible solution is palatable. Forcing people to buy insurance and special cages violates their rights as property owners and their freedom of choice as American citizens. Making pit bull owners muzzle their pets without saddling owners of other large dogs with the same wrongheaded restriction is simply discriminatory.

    It’s understandable that Shelby city leaders would be concerned by the recent dog attack in Waxhaw. But feelings of sorrow and anger and confusion just aren’t good enough reasons to pass new laws — especially when all available evidence shows that such laws would do more harm than good.

    Punishing pit bulls or people? | citizens, tragedy, people - Editorial - The Star Online : The Newspaper of Cleveland County
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

  2. #2

    Default

    OMG it is sooooooo good to see the media actually talking sense for once, telling the truth and opposing these laws, thats fantastic. I can't believe that for once the media is on the right side. Woohoo this is a slight win for people fighting BSL.

  3. #3

    Default

    great stuff thanks for posting.
    Dogs make everyday life enjoyable...........

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    423

    Default

    Pity there are owners out there who make this stuff happen, pity's do not normally attack humans, nor, if properly handled do they even attack dogs willy nilly, maybe if they would just make prospective owners of any type of dog large enough to kill or severly maim do a course in dog handling run by a suitably qualified trainer, and if courses were run in schools too to help educate kids on how to behave around dogs a lot of these awfull things would not happen.
    Anyone who cannot handle and train a large dog is at risk of their dog doing a lot of damage, it is indeed not breed related as far as dogs attacking humans goes.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Minibulls mum View Post
    .... maybe if they would just make prospective owners of any type of dog large enough to kill or severly maim do a course in dog handling run by a suitably qualified trainer, and if courses were run in schools too to help educate kids on how to behave around dogs a lot of these awfull things would not happen.
    Anyone who cannot handle and train a large dog is at risk of their dog doing a lot of damage, it is indeed not breed related as far as dogs attacking humans goes.
    How large is large enough? Just yesterday I was severely bitten by a Chihuahua... If that dog had done same to a child..... I think your suggestions re educating children, and prospective owners and the public are excellent. I'd like to see people have to get a license to have a pet (not just a dog!) of any kind... Not just arbitrarily pick a breed size to apply it to.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Northern NSW
    Posts
    751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Villain & Flirtt View Post
    How large is large enough? Just yesterday I was severely bitten by a Chihuahua... If that dog had done same to a child..... I think your suggestions re educating children, and prospective owners and the public are excellent. I'd like to see people have to get a license to have a pet (not just a dog!) of any kind... Not just arbitrarily pick a breed size to apply it to.
    Brilliant idea V & F

    Some people buy specific breeds to boost their egos.

    Some people feel it's a right & not a privilege to own a dog.

    Some people think it's just a dog & treat it like any other product with a use by date.

    They don't care about socialisation, basic handling skills or basic care needs.
    Nor do they appreciate, that with a little bit of education & understanding on their part, they can have an animal that is eager to bond, trust & protect them.

    Sorry guys, I'm way off topic again........... rant over......
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/Chippo/Dogsx4blackbackground.jpg
    ... Jade ...

    Aha yeah me too! wee wee or pee pee and poo poo's or poopie

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    4,241

    Default

    I've always thought a licence would be a brilliant idea.
    It might eliminate a lot of the dead beats that ruin the PB, Dobe, Rotti and GSD reputation.
    Education not Legislation

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    743

    Default

    IMO a license covers quite a few 'targets'; it exposes prospective pet owners to education, by it's very existence it adds weight to the responsibilities of pet ownership in the public eye, it has the capacity to identify at the very least the outliers- those particularly inappropriate people, it could help people identify appropriate breeds/pets for themselves and on top of all that it could raise revenue for council/ rescue etc. I used to think it should be free, but then decided it should have a cost (maybe replace annual council rego costs) because it seems to be human nature to place more value on something that cost you money.

    It all seems so simple snd sensible. I think that, politically, that's the problem- it's not obtuse and complicated enough

    Sorry Choppa, I've taken us off topic too. But I'd love to see PB's released from this ridiculous politically and media created bull **** image.
    Last edited by Villain & Flirtt; 01-27-2011 at 07:47 AM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Licencing would be good if done appropratly & not too exspensive to renew.
    These days your more regulated to own a sheep than a dog.
    I strongly believe education is the way to go & if liscensing allows for better education I'm all for it.
    Dogs make everyday life enjoyable...........

  10. #10

    Default

    I am also one for having to at the very least sit an exam to own a dog.


    Oh and no worries V&F
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •