BSL

[Guest Anonymous]

I was just curious what everyone thinks and what your opinions are...I was debating BSL with my Dad, and it got me to thinking.

[b]Does anyone agree with BSL? If so why?

Do you agree with parts of it? If so what parts and why?

And last but not least if you do not agree with it, why?

And what do you think would be better measures/laws/restrictions?[/b]

[Taurus and Jada]

No, I do not agree with BSL. I am a strong beleiver in "Punish the Deed , not the breed." I am the proud owner of an APBT and a presa canario, both who are well socialized, trained, excellent dogs. ( not to mention my best friends). If you look at the American Temperment Test results for breeds The APBT, the AMSTaff and the staffy, all score over 82% on average, right up there with the golden retreiver. ANyone who has owned or known these dogs knows that they are not bad dogs, so why should they be pnished for a few bad owners out there?
I do not beleive that BSL works because even if there was a world wide ban on "pitbulls" ( by this I mean AMstaff, APBT, and Staffy), the drug dealers and scumbags would just find another dog to use to do their dirty work.
I beleive that if a dog bites, it should be labeled a "dangerous dog", be muzzled in public,and never allowed off leash. If the same dog bites again, it should be putdown. Regardless of breed this is how dangerous dogs should be dealt with. Also, if the owners are found to be negligent or careless with the dog, or train the dog to attack, then I think they should get jail time, and when they get out, they should never be allowed to own another dog.
I think we need to start looking at the other end of the leash. MOST Pitbulls are great dogs. I say most because unfortunatly due to their popularity they have become subjected to the wrath of poor breeding practices, and Backyard Breeders just trying to make a quick dollar. But a well bred PitbUll should never be eople aggresive. They were never bred to be people killers. Some may be dog aggressive, nut that is a far cry from people aggresive.
I refer to BSL regarding Pitbulls, because they seem to be the targeted dog of the moment, but I beleive this to be true for all dogs. All dogs have the potential to be dangerous and bite, but an all out ban is not going to stop dog bites; people becoming responsible for their dogs proper training and socialization is defenitly a start though.

[Guest Anonymous]

I would first like to say.... DAMN GOOD POST!!!
great subject and i will be watching this one just to see all the points of view.

Personally I feel that there are portions of some BSL that are valid, but the idea itself is skewed. The problem is the only people that will be affected by BSL are the lawabidding people and odds are they arent the people with the problem dogs. The problem breeders and owners could care less about the laws, they breed drug house guard dogs, and fighters, and intimidators. the dogs are just barely reminiscent of the breed and that is all the media needs. BSL could never work, simply because you just drive the dogs underground then, and the dogs are then going to be hidden and wont recieve vet care, will ive in garages, closets and basements. It will just make the lives of the dogs more miserable and dismal. The "people" that own them illegally will continue to breed and fight and make money. the law abidding good owners are going to be punished.

I am against it, i would like to see some restrictions out there but there is no way to really implement it to all.

[courtnek]

I also do not agree with BSL....it's NOT the dogs, it's the owner.

I was around when the GSD, the Rottie and the Dobie were the "bad" dogs....and it wasnt the dogs fault

bad breeding, bad owners, and lack of understanding about the breed in general causes these problems...

the macho morons buy Pits and Pit mixes, cause they're "tough"..they have no clue how to raise, treat and train these dogs...bites happen.
the dog gets punished...not the stupid ignorant owner...

I believe there should be laws enacted wher NO ONE can buy a "dangerous" dog, without being forced to take training classes on how to
train, treat and control that dog. These dog's need special licensing, which
may put the "macho morons" off their purchase, since the cost is extra.

It may seem like I'm punishing the dog, but I'm not. These dogs int
the correct hands are wonderful family pets. In the wrong hands, they are the nightmare the media portrays them to be...

[Taurus and Jada]

I was just curious to know who lives in an area where there is BSL, and is it effective at all in your area?

[GIXXSTER]

I totally do not support BSL. BSL basically says that ALL dogs of a certain breed are bad.

Here is a link to Californias dog laws
[url]http://www.rott-n-chatter.com/rottweilers/laws/california.html[/url]

[Guest Anonymous]

I personally do not live in a BSL area, but there is a city an hour away that has a by-law stating that all Pit Bulls are "restricted dogs" and they also fall under "dangerous/vicious dogs" as well.

Here's the by-law..

An owner of a Restricted Dog or Vicious Dog must apply for and at all times keep in force a Restricted License for his or her animal.

5.2 An owner of a Restricted Dog or Vicious Dog shall keep in force a policy of liability insurance in a form satisfactory to the Animal Control Officer providing third party liability coverage in a minimum amount of $500,000.00 for injuries caused by the Owner

[GIXXSTER]

[quote name='ThePoutyPitbull']
They are trying to bring this law to the area I live in, but I doubt it will pass as there no problems with Pit Bulls here[/quote]

Just because there are no problems doesn't mean that someone wont try. Do you have any plans for getting the other Pitbull owner around your area and in the city that has a restriction together and fight BSL?

[GIXXSTER]

Got this off another forum I'm on

[quote name='Cross post from [url']www.purebredpuppy.com][/url]




Dog attacks spark national campaign, local lobbying

Oct 30, 2003
Lisa Queen, Staff Writer - More from this author

A national campaign urging municipalities to place stricter controls on aggressive dogs is a good idea, the owner of a dog attacked by a pitbull this month says.

The campaign comes on the heels of an attack near Stouffville last weekend that left an 11-year-old girl seriously injured.

Allan Smith, of Newmarket, said a rash of vicious dog attacks in York Region in the past four months proves stronger tactics are needed to address the problem.

"It's unnerving with these dogs in communities with people and children around," said Mr. Smith, whose dog, Jasper, is still recovering from the attack.

"But it's not just something that's happened lately. These things happen all the time."

He's pleased to hear the Canada Safety Council is urging politicians and communities to beef up measures against aggressive dogs and their owners.

"The system relies on owners to be responsible. What if they aren't? It doesn't seem anybody has gone to the effort to put the rules in place to protect people and other animals," said Mr. Smith, who is lobbying council candidates to enact stricter dog control bylaws if they are elected Nov. 10.

"My experience is less than enthusiastic in what municipalities or authorities are willing or prepared to do."

Mr. Smith was forced to beat off a pitbull with the blunt end of an axe after it bit Jasper's neck during an unprovoked attack early this month.

The owner has been charged by Newmarket's bylaw department. Meanwhile, Mr. Smith is asking the courts to order the pitbull be destroyed since the dog was already under a muzzle order after biting a woman in 2001.

The attack was just the latest in a string of vicious dog incidents in the region since July.

York Regional Police have shot and killed two aggressive dogs including:

[imported_Kat]

Can anyone tell me what BSL stands for? While I was awake last night and couldn't sleep I thought maybe bullsh*t law? :lol:

[imported_Kat]

From what I have read of it name suits it!

[GIXXSTER]

Breed Specific Legislation

But yes the other name above are much better.

[Guest Anonymous]

My friend lives in a city in which pit bulls are illegal to own. I have gone to visit a few times, with my housedog, and havent gotten bothered too much. Cops have stopped a couple times but "only to make sure my leash was no longer than 3ft long." They both told me I am supposed to inform the local law enforcement " of my dogs presence in town". Both played with my dog for a good 10 minutes before they left and one even stated how its not fair how the breed is treated.
I agree something needs to be done but IMO, BSL is the wrong path to take. It will start with the "pit bull" type dogs and work its way until every breed has restrictions. Banning the breed is not going to change the mentality of bad owners, as there will always be bad owners. At least for as long as we are "allowed" to own dogs. The restrictions need to be put on them but unfortunately it is more costly and takes more of their precious time to screen potential dog owners than it is to just do away with certain breeds.
I wont ever live in an area where they ban the APBT. I will move, if I have to, until there isnt anywhere else to move. I love my dogs and dont think I would be able to get out of bed in the morning knowing I couldnt walk out my backdoor and talk to them. Its really sad to think there are people with enough power in this world to tell me I cant have that. Dont we have the right to pursue happiness? Hmm, I guess that is just another thing they can tell us how to do.

[Guest Anonymous]

[quote name='Image1']Just because there are no problems doesn't mean that someone wont try. Do you have any plans for getting the other Pitbull owner around your area and in the city that has a restriction together and fight BSL?[/quote]

Yes. I have met other owners, they were at a meeting for the possible change of the by-law. There was no one there supporting it, and everyone who was there was fighting it...and there were many many people there. Not just owners of Pit Bulls either, there was trainers, AC officers, RCMP officers and others. I highly doubt it will be passed. For a lot of reasons, mostly because there is no one to enforce it.

[GIXXSTER]

Right on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is so good to hear that people came together (and not just pitbull owners) to stop this from happining.

[Guest Anonymous]

first of all i just want to say fuck bsl, its by a bunch of know nothing poodle owning yuppy legislators that dont know shit about real pit bulls and other great dogs such as my rottweilers all they here about is the bad dogs and the poorly raised/bred dogs that tend to raise hell upon kids people other dogs animals and property. so plain and simple any one who thinks outlawing or restricting a cetain breed of dog simply for the wrongdooings of a few others really needs to open there eyes to the well trained and obediant dogs that are of the majority of the population thats the nicest way i can put it they probably wouldnt let me post my quote on what i really want to say about bsl!!!

[Guest Anonymous]

[quote name='GIXXSTER']I totally do not support BSL. BSL basically says that ALL dogs of a certain breed are bad.

Here is a link to Californias dog laws
[url]http://www.rott-n-chatter.com/rottweilers/laws/california.html[/url][/quote]

***********************


Actually, breed specific legislation no more says that "ALL dogs of a certain breed are bad" than gun control legislation says that "ALL handgun owners are criminals." And it is completely misleading to talk about "breed specific legislation" as though it is a meaningful term. The law that makes the American Water Spaniel the state dog of Wisconsin is "breed specific legislation." Are you strongly against that? Why? Just because it is "breed specific?"

I am generally against breed BANS, but there is a lot of breed specific stuff (including programs, offered many places, where pit bulls are spayed/neutered for free whereas the owners of all other dogs have to pay) which is "breed specific" that arguably HELP dogs. My reaction is to look at the individual proposal and see whether it helps dogs or not. If it does help dogs, I am for it, if it hurts dogs, I am against it.

The reality is that certain breeds (particularly pit bulls) have and cause so many problems that the certain reaction is breed BANS unless people think of other solutions. The solutions proposed by people on this board basically consist of "everybody should be responsible" which is a pretty thought, but repeating it over and over won't save a single pit bull life. They are dying by the thousands while the people who should be protecting them stand around and protect the rights of breeders to turn out yet more to die horrible deaths.

primrose

[GIXXSTER]

My bad Primrose, I should have clearified that more. I meant totally against BSL as it relates to banning and restrictions.

[disSanFranchised]

[quote]The reality is that certain breeds (particularly pit bulls) have and cause so many problems that the certain reaction is breed BANS unless people think of other solutions[/quote]

Actually, the bottom line is that the folks causing problems with pit bulls don't obey laws (or common sense) in the first place.

BSL is ineffectual in preventing bad owners from acquiring the dogs. No reputable animal organization supports it, including HSUS. Cities (like Denver) who have put it in place have found no decrease of the breed, and I was told that pit bulls actually *increased* in Ohio.

As one of the HSUS bigwigs said to me: "If we outlaw the breed, only outlaws breed." And keep in mind here that HSUS does not particularly seem to have an educated or enlightened view of the breed (there is so much emphasis on dog fighting), but even they understand that the logic flaws in breed bans put the "BS" in BSL.

[Guest Anonymous]

The thing I wonder about is what [b]are[/b] the statistics in terms of dog-fighting--how effective is BSL at preventing dog-fighting? As I understand it, BSL in places like the U.K. is aimed at preventing the "sport" of dog-fighting. They view it as protecting the breed from cruelty, rather than as punishing a breed. I don't think I've ever seen any statistics, but I know that dog-fighting is rampant in the U.S. and that we have a tremendous pit-bull problem with hundreds of thousands being euthanized every year. A web search will paint a horrifying picture of what happens to the many thousands of dogs that are used for fighting. I would be willing to entertain a breed ban if I could be assured that the result would be significantly fewer of these dogs tortured, killed, and euthanized.

[abker17]

[quote]The solutions proposed by people on this board basically consist of "everybody should be responsible" which is a pretty thought, but repeating it over and over won't save a single pit bull life.[/quote]

Actually I think most people on this board believe in actually enforcing the already existing laws, like leash laws and ect.

[disSanFranchised]

[quote]I would be willing to entertain a breed ban if I could be assured that the result would be significantly fewer of these dogs tortured, killed, and euthanized.[/quote]

But that won't be the result, because dogfighters by default *do not obey laws.*

Dogfighting is a felony in almost all states, yet the problem exists. If law enforcement can't even bust people committing a felony I can't imagine where the manpower or interest in busting someone for owning a pit bull will originate. It simply makes no sense to assume that criminals are going to obey a breed-ban law.

In any case, dogfighting is overly sensationalized by the press and is simply *not* the reason that so many pit bulls die every year. Our shelters are 60-80% full of pit bulls because every yahoo and his brother is breeding them and peddling them off to anyone who wants them. Yes, we see the fallout of dogfighting rings. However, these dogs are in the minority; the vast majority of pit bulls in the shelters are the victims of abandonment and neglect.

Breed bans do not solve anything. They target the responsible folks who aren't creating the problem.

There is proposed legislation in California right now aimed to regulate breeding:

[url]http://beckerville.com/humane/AB_2513_statment.pdf[/url]

There are a lot of loopholes, but at least it's a step in the right direction. The AKC is having a fit and so are many breeders, who claim that it will hurt the responsible ones. My question is enforcement, particularly as pertains to BYB's, who many will finger as being ultimately responsible for the bulk of the dogs in the shelters.

Then again, arguably the single worst offender in our area as relates to pit bull overpopulation is a show breeder who wins ribbons right and left. This person produced 569 puppies in 2001. Christ.

BYB's don't conjure their dogs out of thin air. The overpopulation problem has to be addressed from the top down. That starts with good breeders, breed clubs, and the registries.

Of course the last is a pipe dream, but hey.

[abker17]

I'm glad to see California going in that direction, I hope it helps and if it does that other states will follow.

[quote]Then again, arguably the single worst offender in our area as relates to pit bull overpopulation is a show breeder who wins ribbons right and left. This person produced 569 puppies in 2001. Christ.[/quote]
:o

[Guest Anonymous]

[quote]Dogfighting is a felony in almost all states, yet the problem exists. If law enforcement can't even bust people committing a felony I can't imagine where the manpower or interest in busting someone for owning a pit bull will originate. It simply makes no sense to assume that criminals are going to obey a breed-ban law. [/quote]

Doesn't the same logic you used about dog-fighting being a felony and still not having it under control apply to the California law as well? It seems to me that it will be even more difficult to enforce a mandatory spay/neuter law than it would a breed ban. Won't the same irresponsible people who are breeding their dogs now ignore the mandatory spay/neuter law? I believe I read somewhere that something like 70% of the dogs in NYC were not licensed. If we can't enforce licensing, how can we expect to enforce this? I think it is a wonderful idea, but I'm just not sure it will work any better than a breed ban. I also question how effective such a law will be if it only applies to California, especially with all the internet animal commerce.
Incidentally, everything I read indicates that dog-fighting is greatly increasing in the U.S. and is not just sensational press. e.g. "The Humane Society of the United States keeps a database of news reports on dog fighting. It estimates 40,000 people are involved in the blood sport and 250,000 pit bulls are used." I don't consider that to be an insignificant problem.

[disSanFranchised]

[quote]If we can't enforce licensing, how can we expect to enforce this?[/quote]

Like I said - my question is enforcement. I didn't say I think the law will work or even that I support it, I was simply pointing out that at the very least this law addresses the pit bull problem (tho' it's not a breed-specific law) from the right angle: overpopulation.

Dogfighting is a problem, but it's not my problem to solve, and it's certainly not the greatest challenge facing pit bulls as a breed. It's an oversensationalized phenomenon and is often conveniently used as an excuse by people like PETA to ban the breed. (PETA of course wants to eliminate all breeding in order to eliminate companion animals as a "slave class," so it's no surprise that they'll start with an easy target to get some traction.)

I have spoken with HSUS and its "pit bull expert" about its stats (an "estimation" based on... what?) and I, unlike the folks in suits coming up with these stats, have actually seen the inside of a shelter in an urban area where dogfighting occurs. Sorry, but the fighting-ring dogs we see are simply not the majority of dogs in the shelters. They're just not. I've talked to people in other parts of the country and they see the same thing.

Yes, some people fight their dogs. Yes, it is a problem. Yes, it may be on the rise. However, BSL won't solve it (even if there were no pits in the world, these folks would find another breed). This is felonious activity that needs to be addressed by law enforcement. Creating new laws isn't going to help matters, and as a rescuer I am simply not equipped to do the job of the FBI and the local police.

In any case, I didn't say dogfighting was insignificant. Then again, even if that 250k number is to be believed (and I for one don't necessarily buy it), that is not even close to the number of pit bulls that die in the shelter system due to overpopulation. Hell, L.A. County alone kills about 200 pit bulls *a day.*

Check your local classifieds and just count the number of people peddling off pit bull litters and studding them out. The numbers are mind-boggling. This has become a fad breed, plain and simple. It's "cool" to own one. You have the Rott 'n Pits of the world studding their out-of-standard blues with homedone crop chops, auctioning off their flashy blue stud at online auction - why? Quick cash, makes them feel cool. Gross.

Would a registration fee/licensing law prevent people like this from producing a litter? I doubt it. That's the problem. Then again, it may curb the activities of the so-called "reputable" breeders producing hundreds of intact puppies every year. That's a start, at least.

One major hole is a lack of accountability for the stud owner. The responsibility for a litter should not end with a stud fee, but it very often does.

Sigh.

[quote]As I understand it, BSL in places like the U.K. is aimed at preventing the "sport" of dog-fighting.[/quote]

Er - where did you hear that? The U.K. has banned AmStaffs and Pit Bulls, but the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and BT's originated there and are still very much allowed. In fact, Staffies are in the top 10 dogs there.

I've never heard that the U.K. used dogfighting as their rationale behind the APBT/AST ban, so if you could cite your source for me I'd appreciate it. Thanks.