Ban Breeding of Fighting Dogs

[Gunny Bunny]

Breeding Tragedy :evil:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's time for legislators to enact a ban on the breeding of fighting dogs. It's not as a knee-jerk reaction to an awful attack, but as a long overdue, well-considered piece of legislation designed to protect animals and the public.

Recent events warrant this action. The much-publicized fatal mauling of San Francisco resident Diane Whipple by a Presa Canario dog would seem to have spurred a rash of similar crimes. In the week following Whipple's death, dog attacks were reported across the country. On Long Island, for example, where Ms. Whipple used to live, two incidents involved different pairs of pit bulls who attacked other dogs; one of the pairs also chased two young boys. In a third, a bull mastiff clamped his jaws onto a miniature poodle and killed him.

Of course, dogs don't read newspapers, so what's really going on? The truth is that trouble is brewing all the time, but we don't hear about it until events take a tragic, and usually preventable, turn. Bane, the dog who attacked Whipple, was a problem long before he killed. A little digging by reporters revealed that residents of the apartment building where Bane, his caretakers, and Whipple lived had called police at least 40 times to report that the enormous dog was vicious. They were so fearful that they devised walking schedules with Bane's caretakers to avoid confrontations.

Newsday reported that the pit bulls who chased the boys and then attacked the Labrador retriever who heroically came to their defense were known up and down the street to be dangerous. Neighbors even used a makeshift phone tree to spread the word when the dogs escaped from their yard: Bring your kids and dogs inside; Buddy and Casey are loose again.

Better enforcement of existing laws, which means holding human handlers responsible for their dogs' actions before it's too late, would prevent many of the attacks. Perhaps if San Francisco officials had taken those dozens of calls seriously and Bane's caretakers had been forced to move the dog to a more suitable home or even to euthanize him, Whipple would be alive today.

Law

[Taurus and Jada]

[quote]Better enforcement of existing laws, which means holding human handlers responsible for their dogs' actions before it's too late, would prevent many of the attacks.[/quote]

This is exactly true. The problem with vicious dogs can almost always be traced back to the other end of the leash. PitBulls are not inherently vicious towards people. They were bred to fight each other. A well bred, well socialized APBT is a loving, caring, gentle pet which fits in great in any home, children or not. We must hold the irresponsible owners accountable, not the dogs.

[quote]There are many wonderful dogs, mixed and purebred, large and small, in need of good homes who have never curled a lip at anybody. They die, while breeders of fighting dogs continue to breed tragedy. [/quote]

There are also many pitbulls, presa, mastiffs, bulldogs, etc, etc who have never "curled a lip at anyone" who deserve a second chance. The anwser is not in destroying all fighting breed dogs. If you never want to see another dog bite, then you would have to banish ALL dogs. If you take away the pitbulls, then the "drug dealers and pit fighters" will just find another dog to fight. It will not eliminate the problem of dog bites or maulings. Any dog has the ability to attack, they ar einfact, just animals. The downfall of the APBT has been the Back Yard Breeders. If it were not for poor breeding practices , due to the popularity of the dog, then pitbulls would not have becoem what SOME of them have become today. A well bred pitbull should NEVER maul, attack , or kill a human being. As I stated above, they were bred to fight each other, but to be very accepting of humans. In fact, their owners would have to put their hands in the middle of them while they were fighting to break them up at times, so the owner must be 100% sure that the dog would know the difference between them and the dog, and not bite them. Fighting dogs that bite their handler's were put down. This was not a characteristic that was looked for, human aggressivness, it was actually stopped in it's tracks when it did occur.

So in my opinion, NO banning all fighting dogs will really get us no where. I do agree that sometihings must be done, however outlawing the breeding of all fighting dogs is not it. Perhaps outlawing the back yard breeders is a start!

[mouseatthebusstop]

Gunny Bunny If you were not a member I would say you were a TROLL :cry:

[kendalyn]

I thought Gunny Bunny's post was logical and well thought out. While I don't agree with some of it, I don't think it sounds like the work of a troll.

It is generally ineffective to "ban" anything. Can you think of any one thing that has been banned that is still not readily available? Alcohol was banned. That was a horrible fiasco. Illegal liquor was even stored in the basement of capitol hill so that congressman could still have it. Many drugs are banned. If I wanted to go buy some right now, I know exactly where I could get it and the chances of being caught are few. Prostitution is banned. I see hookers on the street every night. It sounds like a simple solution to a difficult problem, but it just doesn't work.

[courtnek]

[quote]It is generally ineffective to "ban" anything. Can you think of any one thing that has been banned that is still not readily available? Alcohol was banned. That was a horrible fiasco. Illegal liquor was even stored in the basement of capitol hill so that congressman could still have it. Many drugs are banned. If I wanted to go buy some right now, I know exactly where I could get it and the chances of being caught are few. Prostitution is banned. I see hookers on the street every night. It sounds like a simple solution to a difficult problem, but it just doesn't work[/quote]

That;s exactly correct, Kendalyn. In fact, as soon as you ban something, people then want it even more. It's the fact that you've been told in a "free" society that you cant have something that makes people want it even more. Banning wont stop thugs from fighting dogs, or dogs from biting people. Only well legislated laws can do that. And ENFORCEMENT
of those laws.

[Gunny Bunny]

"I think this just goes to the basic unpredictability of certain breeds of dogs," he said. "The dog was frenzied. The whole thing lasted about 45 seconds.''

[url]http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/24/BAGLV39DJD1.DTL[/url]

[courtnek]

p.s.

and the really sad part is this. Both of my dogs escaped from the house the other day, slipped through an open door. I immediately called the police, as the law says you are required to. I was on my cell, outside calling the dogs back. Neither of them are vicious, but Freebee does not like strangers, although I doubt she'd hurt one unless threatened. She is more likely to just back away. The very first thing the answering officer asked me was "are they mean?" and I said no, and she replied "if they show any aggression to the officers who try to contain them, they will be shot. You need to be aware of this...."

I didnt believe it. I was so shocked I didnt ask shot with what, thinking maybe a tranquilizer dart, but I doubt it. Fortunately, both dogs came back on their own, after a little foray of the neighborhood with me following behind. Yes, their recall sucks, they are both hunting dogs and their noses get the better of them, which is why I have a six foot fence around my yard.....

this si what it has become, because of bad breeders and dog fighting thugs. Every dog, even a Lab and a Foxhound, can now be shot for
getting loose....

[kendalyn]

[quote]"I think this just goes to the basic unpredictability of certain breeds of dogs," he said. "The dog was frenzied. The whole thing lasted about 45 seconds.'' [/quote]

care to explain this?

[quote]Every dog, even a Lab and a Foxhound, can now be shot for
getting loose....[/quote]

It is too bad. I wonder what law enforcement's definition of aggression is...? I would hope they would send an officer who is experienced with dogs. Maybe someone from the K-9 unit.

[courtnek]

Here they have a seperate animal control unit, made up of people who's job is to work with animals that excape, are neglected, or badly treated/
They are very familiar with animals and offer training classes. They also have full police powers, kinda like Animal Cops in New York. And they carry guns. They were the ones who originally told me (after recapturing Freebee on one of her forays) that hunting dogs tend to run, even when recall trained. She said they round up more of them than any other type of dog. Labs, Hounds, Retrievers, tehy are all excellent escape artists...The Beagle across the street escapes all the time, to come over here....I feel like I own him sometimes, but he likes my dogs...

The shot law must be new. Only lately have I seen them carrying guns. They have always carried control sticks.

:cry:

[Gunny Bunny]

Currently several countries have total bans on fighting dogs including the UK, Australia, France. In addition, certain parts of Canada and the USA have bans on fighting dogs, presumably in time they will have complete bans. Please note the following:

Pontiac, MI., USA

No owners of pit bulls registered before the April 16 ban must: have their animals leashed and muzzled in public; have tattoo or microchip identifications on their animals; carry $100,000 in liability insurance; and keep their dogs in pens with walls or behind a fence with poles at least one foot in the ground.
---

[url]http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910065_en_1.htm[/url]

England

1.

[Gunny Bunny]

[url]http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E161%257E1805350,00.html[/url]

[courtnek]

I DONT have a problem with the law requiring adults (not teenagers)
to walk and handle "dangerous dogs". I can see the merit in that, as adults have gotten past the "macho" stage, in most cases...there are always those that dont grow up...but banning the breed wont stop the problem.

:evil: