tough new pit bull restrictions

[Guest Anonymous]

You know how I often say that pit bulls are just a headline away from being banned pretty much anywhere? While you guys have been busy posting cute pictures and snickering about how stupid it is to think that dog aggression in pit bulls is any kind of problem that you have to worry about, Boston has enacted very tough restrictions on pit bulls in response, apparently, to just a couple of fairly serious attacks on dogs by pit bulls.

Go here to read about the "fast tracked" new laws, which will limit Bostonians to two pit bulls, require that they be muzzled in public, require 100,000 worth of liability insurance and require that they all be spayed/neutered.

[url]http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=33140[/url]

What a shame for responsible owners of purebred Amstaffs or staffybulls in Boston who might have wanted to keep valuable breeding animals intact and now will be forced to speuter or move. And the fact that all pit bulls will now have to be muzzled in public is a horrible step backwards for pit bull image in Boston. Think how much better it would have been if the pit bull community had, years ago, proactively sought to police itself (and not coincidentally, protect pit bulls) by ASKING for laws requiring the spay/neuter of unregistered pit bulls. On a positive note, maybe the fact that a big market like Boston now requires high liability insurance will motivate some responsible owners to organize and think of ways to distinguish themselves from the folks who are destroying the breed (say, obedience titles on all dogs) to get affordable group insurance rates for responsible owners.

primrose

[imported_Kat]

This was actually already posted a few days back by DL.

[cheekymunkee]

[quote]You know how I often say that pit bulls are just a headline away from being banned pretty much anywhere? While you guys have been busy posting cute pictures and snickering about how stupid it is to think that dog aggression in pit bulls is any kind of problem that you have to worry about, Boston has enacted very tough restrictions on pit bulls in response, apparently, to just a couple of fairly serious attacks on dogs by pit bulls.
[/quote]

That's where you are wrong. We may have lost Boston but we WON Colorado. Also, I live in Texas, BSL is against the state constituion. There are two small cities that have a sort of BSL but if it were to be challenged in court I am sure it would be overturned. However, resisdents of those towns need to be the ones to challenge the laws. If I were to try to do it NOT being a resident of those cities I would be ignored since I don't live or pay taxes there. That is another thing I do to fight BSL, I REFUSE to travel through or spend my hard earned dollar bills in states or cities that support BSL. If that means I have to stay in Texas & never leave the state, so be it.

Debby[/code]

[cheekymunkee]

There's ALWAYS room for more pittie lovers! Come on down!

Debby

[Shenanigans]

This reminds me of a current political debate going on up here (election in a few days) PartyW says if you don't agree with our views on how to solve child pornography, you must support it. Parties, X, Y and Z....Whaaaaaa? You've got to be kidding, because we don't support your irrational solution to end child porn, we now support it???

Precisely how do you know primorse that people here haven't actively been campaigning against it, in addition to posting cute pictures? How do you know that pit bull owners haven't proactively been working on avoiding BSL?

Your solution has some really big holes in it, the largest would be enforcement or irresponsibly bred and owned pit bulls. I don't know about Boston, but I'm pretty sure their animal control budget wouldn't allow for officers to go around making sure each pit bull they see is s/n. Not to mention of enforcing the penalties of not having an altered dog. 5, 10 years later, a reactive city council sees that the s/n aren't working and ban the breed anyways.

[cheekymunkee]

[quote name='K']I just read that Isreal has banned APBT/AST/SBT and has a view to banning several other breeds too...so although I can not do anything about that now I can do my own little bit...as our next diving trip was going to be to Eilat...that is now cancelled...they will get NONE of my tourist money now...[/quote]

I agree. By boycotting these places, I may NOT be hurting their economy but I am NOT helping it either. I am very particular about where I spend my cash.


Debby

[Guest Anonymous]

I've never been to Israel..they banned pitties there?
I don't know what I think about that...

What's your guy's view on third world/top poverty countries banning certain breeds (And I'm not refering to Israel cuz I've never been there so I don't know what its like in all the cities)? There's already overpopulation and starving people and dogs...I guess sometimes I think its better to ban dogs in places like that. What do you guys think?

Even though that's probably the last of their concerns.. :o

[Lokipups]

And what I find truly odd about a pitbull ban in Isreal is the fact that their national dog, the Canaan, is not exactly the most people friendly breed out there, similar in nature to the Chow. Thanks, but I'll take a pittie any day over the Canaan :-? .

[Guest Anonymous]

Where'd you get that $100,000 in liability insurance would be required? Thats news to me.

What would be required is for pit bulls to be spayed/neutered, muzzled in public, limit of 2 per household and post a beware of dog sign on the property.

And since Mayor Menino hasn't yet signed the bill why don't you help out and write him a letter giving him info. and reasons why these types of laws don't work?

Heres the info.
Mayor's Office

Address:
Mayor's Office
1 City Hall Plaza
Boston, MA 02201

Telephone: 617.635.4500

Facsimile: 617.635.3496

Web Site:
[url]www.cityofboston.gov/mayor[/url]

E-mail:
[email][email protected][/email]

[cheekymunkee]

Thank you for those contact names & numbers, I'll get yet another lettter written tonight!

Debby

[xavierandrea]

Here is what I wrote..

Dear Mr. Menino,
I do not live in Boston but I do live in Massachusetts. I recently read about the Pitt Bull Law that is on the table. I find this very upsetting we should not punish an entire breed for a few bad dogs. I own 3 Rottweilers and I am scared that they are next. I have meet many Pitts and all were very well behaved. First will be Pitts, then Rotties then Dobbies and eventually Labs! Its a shame that the goverment is wasting my tax dollars on this. We need the tax money to build new schools, roads and other important things. My son's school is a disgrace and the roads are hideous. We as residents of Massachusetts should have a say on this. I SAY NO!!!!!! We should punish the persons and not the breed of dog! Do you know that there are many Pitt Bulls doing therapy work? They are very loving dogs in the right hands! Please do not pass this bill into law. Please give these wonderfull dogs a chance! Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.
Andrea

[Guest Anonymous]

Great Cheeky- the more letters he recieves the better chance we have.

Looks good Xavierandrea :) Thanks for taking the time to write a letter.

What part of Mass are you in?

I'm near Foxboro (Gillette Stadium)

[Guest Anonymous]

Oh POOO! :lol:

That guest was me..........

[mydogroxy]

not to be a pest but, andrea it's "pit" not "pitt"

:lol:

but thanks for supporting pitties anyway!

[Cairn6]

If there are 3 times as many attacks by Pit Bulls then the second offender the German Shephard then there does need to be some sort of control. But it needs to be control of the owners of the dogs. Did this police officers get any punishment at all for letting his dog run loose? I don't think so. They can go ahead and ban pit bulls but they are too stupid to realize the reason why there is a problem with pit bulls is because that is the choice of dog that all the people who simply want to have a scary looking dog are choosing. If you ban pit bulls they will pick another breed. You can make any dog vicious if you try.

[Guest Mutts4Me]

[quote name='primorse'] Think how much better it would have been if the pit bull community had, years ago, proactively sought to police itself (and not coincidentally, protect pit bulls) by ASKING for laws requiring the spay/neuter of unregistered pit bulls. [/quote]

Yeah, because if you make sure to ask [b]really nicely[/b] then they'll enact any legislation you want. I mean, I'm here in Arkansas working with 100+ Big Cats who've all been (legally) in private hands, usually as pets, sometimes as breeders. And we've been asking the government if they'd please make it illegal to own a tiger as a pet - because while tigers are beautiful lovely creatures, they do not deserve to be kept in tiny cages all their lives so that idoits can show off their pet tigers to their friends - but it's still perfectly legal in most of the southern states.

Why should there be a required spay/neuter for all unregistered Pit Bulls? Plenty of the pits in bad hands are registered. It's not hard, you know. If you look in your classified ads, you'll see hundreds of AKC puppies (all breeds), but if you check them out, the fact that they're registered doesn't mean they're quality dogs, and it doesn't mean that the owners are quality people with decent intentions. Likewise, plenty of people with unregistered rescue Pits are good people with good dogs.

So... what does this have to do with breeding? Good people aren't going to go out and breed their rescue Pits, are they. In fact, most rescue places neuter their dogs before placement. What I'm getting at is that the responsible people will do what's right, and the irresponsible ones will do what's best for them. I doubt it's hard to get some UKC Pit Bulls and breed them irresponsibly.

But are you expecting me to say something along the lines of "But why punish the responsible ones?"? Because I'm not. Like I said, the responsible ones won't breed in the first place. I don't have a problem with spaying and neutering unregistered dogs in the least bit. I do have a problem with Pit Bulls being singled out. So why don't we require spaying and neutering of all unregistered dogs? And why don't the AKC and UKC start keeping a better eye on the people breeding dogs registered with their kennels?

*shrugs* There's no reason to breed unregistered Pit Bulls, no. But there's no reason to breed unregistered dogs at all, is there? The shelters are full of mutts and purebreds alike coming from irresponsible breeding. Will enacting a law that requires all unregistered dogs to be fixed decrease the number of unwanted dogs in shelters? I don't know. I guess it depends on how well it's enforced. It also depends on the actions of those with registered dogs. It depends on a lot of things. There are no certainties in life, especially when you're relying on human beings. Despite what we're told in school, human beings are not the cleverest creaures on Earth :roll:

[Guest Anonymous]

[quote name='sashagirl']Go away!!! :evil:[/quote]
Yeah! What she said!!

[xavierandrea]

Sorry I miss spelled Pit I was at work and quickly typed the letter and my boss walked in and scared the pooo out of me.... Anyways I'm a terrible speller. I wish I knew I was being graded on spelling I would have paid more attention. LOL...:) Sorry....

Pitbull_love I'm in Taunton. Very close to you, like 15-20 min away. :lol:

[Guest Anonymous]

[quote name='Shenanigans']

Precisely how do you know primorse that people here haven't actively been campaigning against it, in addition to posting cute pictures? How do you know that pit bull owners haven't proactively been working on avoiding BSL?

Your solution has some really big holes in it, the largest would be enforcement or irresponsibly bred and owned pit bulls. I don't know about Boston, but I'm pretty sure their animal control budget wouldn't allow for officers to go around making sure each pit bull they see is s/n. Not to mention of enforcing the penalties of not having an altered dog. 5, 10 years later, a reactive city council sees that the s/n aren't working and ban the breed anyways.[/quote]

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

Actually, I assume that people HAVE been "actively campaigning" against the passage of this law. That is, they have been writing letters and emailing each other and showing people pictures of cute pit bulls. I don't doubt the ability of the pit bull community to do that.

What I haven't seen much evidence of, however, is the willingness of the pit bull community to actually lobby for and make the kinds of changes that are necessary so that laws like this won't continue to be passed more and more places. That, is, to support real substantive change that will effectively address the problems that pit bulls have and cause, rather than just to try to convince people that pit bulls don't have or cause any problems.

And, while image matters, ultimately even the best image can't counter a horrible reality. And the reality for pit bulls is pretty horrible, so if the pit bull community doesn't come up with some ways to change reality, politicians are going to continue imposing bans/restrictions.

As to the animal control budget in Boston, the law they just passed requires ALL pit bulls to be spayed/neutered (as well as to have large amounts of insurance coverage). So I guess enforcement authorities in Boston think that they can afford to pass/enforce a law that anticipates monitoring all pit bulls. And maybe they feel the way that I feel about my proposed law--so what if it is only sporadically enforced? If it is only enforced when some thug has seventeen dog aggressive pit bulls chained in a backyard and is breeding every bitch every six months and selling the puppies to drug dealers, wouldn't that still be a GOOD thing? Wouldn't it beat (by a long shot) not having anything that one could do to stop that person which is (I guess) your proposal? What law would YOU suggest? Or is the current situation just fine with you?

Could pit bulls be banned anyway? Sure. They may well be. But it is a virtual certainty that they will be banned if nothing substantive is done to control the irresponsible breeding.

primrose

[imported_Kat]

Mutts isn't it ironic how people need a licence to keep a dog, but yet here also they can have a wolf/tiger/other wild animal and not need a licence. Its something that we have campaigned on over here for years to get a wild animals act introduced into N.Ireland. It amazes me how blind the law can be sometimes.

[Guest Anonymous]

[quote name='Mutts4Me'][quote name='primorse'] Think how much better it would have been if the pit bull community had, years ago, proactively sought to police itself (and not coincidentally, protect pit bulls) by ASKING for laws requiring the spay/neuter of unregistered pit bulls. [/quote]

Yeah, because if you make sure to ask [b]really nicely[/b] then they'll enact any legislation you want. I mean, I'm here in Arkansas working with 100+ Big Cats who've all been (legally) in private hands, usually as pets, sometimes as breeders. And we've been asking the government if they'd please make it illegal to own a tiger as a pet - because while tigers are beautiful lovely creatures, they do not deserve to be kept in tiny cages all their lives so that idoits can show off their pet tigers to their friends - but it's still perfectly legal in most of the southern states.

Why should there be a required spay/neuter for all unregistered Pit Bulls? Plenty of the pits in bad hands are registered. It's not hard, you know. If you look in your classified ads, you'll see hundreds of AKC puppies (all breeds), but if you check them out, the fact that they're registered doesn't mean they're quality dogs, and it doesn't mean that the owners are quality people with decent intentions. Likewise, plenty of people with unregistered rescue Pits are good people with good dogs.

So... what does this have to do with breeding? Good people aren't going to go out and breed their rescue Pits, are they. In fact, most rescue places neuter their dogs before placement. What I'm getting at is that the responsible people will do what's right, and the irresponsible ones will do what's best for them. I doubt it's hard to get some UKC Pit Bulls and breed them irresponsibly.

But are you expecting me to say something along the lines of "But why punish the responsible ones?"? Because I'm not. Like I said, the responsible ones won't breed in the first place. I don't have a problem with spaying and neutering unregistered dogs in the least bit. I do have a problem with Pit Bulls being singled out. So why don't we require spaying and neutering of all unregistered dogs? And why don't the AKC and UKC start keeping a better eye on the people breeding dogs registered with their kennels?

*shrugs* There's no reason to breed unregistered Pit Bulls, no. But there's no reason to breed unregistered dogs at all, is there? The shelters are full of mutts and purebreds alike coming from irresponsible breeding. Will enacting a law that requires all unregistered dogs to be fixed decrease the number of unwanted dogs in shelters? I don't know. I guess it depends on how well it's enforced. It also depends on the actions of those with registered dogs. It depends on a lot of things. There are no certainties in life, especially when you're relying on human beings. Despite what we're told in school, human beings are not the cleverest creaures on Earth :roll:[/quote]

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

So your objections to the idea of mandatory spay neuter of unregistered pit bulls are:

1. It would be hard to convince anybody to pass such a law and you know that because ownership of big cats is still legal in Arkansas.

Response: I am sure it would be hard to enact such a law some places.
So what? Even if one lived in one of those places, the concerted LOBBYING for that kind of law would demonstrate that responsible pit bull owners/breeders want laws to address the realities of irresponsible pit bull breeding. Moreover, just asking for such a law would educate lawmakers about the existence of responsible pit bull owners and how to tell the difference between per se irresponsible owners (who own intact unregistered dogs) and people who may be responsible (do not own intact unregistered dogs). And if there has been heavy lobbying for such a law, when the lawmaker sees the headline about the child or dog killed by the pit bull, and feels the heat from constituents to do something about the pit bull issue, that may be what the legislator thinks to do--instead of a ban.

2. Mandatory spay/neuter of unregistered pit bulls won't solve the whole problem because there are plenty of registered pit bulls who are irresponsibly owned.

Sure there are. But the VAST MAJORITY of the pit bulls who are causing problems are not AKC/UKC registered dogs. The VAST MAJORITY of the irresponsible breeders are not breeding AKC/UKC dogs. Moreover, since we have yet to see an example of a single pit bull breeder anybody claims is responsible who does not register breeding stock with AKC or UKC, every single breeder negatively affected by this law would be irresponsible, right? Do you agree that (at a minimum) we need to cut down on the number of pit bulls bred? If so, what is YOUR solution to do that? Ask the dog fighters politely to stop? You are apparently saying that unless a solution solves the whole problem, 100%, you wouldn't support it. Why not support it just because it makes things better for responsible owners and breeders and pit bulls? \

3. "Plenty of people with unregistered pit bulls are good people with good dogs."

Comment: Of course. But (as you later apparently admit), there is no excuse for BREEDING those unregistered pit bulls, so they should be (and are, if these are truly "good people") spayed/neutered, right? So my proposed law wouldn't affect them at all, except to provide some protection to them from the folks who aren't so responsible who are actively making it so they can't own pit bulls at all.

4. Why not requires spaying neutering of all unregistered dogs?

Because it won't pass. The reason that laws regulating pit bulls (including breed bans) are passed is to protect the public from pit bulls. It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with making things better for animals. Since there is no perceived reason to protect the public from irresponsibly bred beagle mixes, and it is cheaper and easier to pick them up and kill them than to pass mandatory spay/neuter of them, nobody will will pass mandatory spay/neuter. However, voters don't like it when pit bulls kill their dogs. They like it even less when pit bulls kill or injure their children.

Ironically, pit bulls could be the beneficiaries of the laws passed in response to the threat that they pose. That is, if the laws were well thought out, (mandatory spay/neuter of unregistered pit bulls) they could help pit bulls and result in a huge decrease in the numbers of pit bulls being slaughtered in shelters. But pit bull owners/breeders whine that they dont' want to be "singled out" to have the irresponsible members of their community curbed. At the same time, of course, they whine that they are absolutely powerless to stop irresponsible breeders (which is accurate--they are). Thus they say that education can't work, and they don't WANT laws. They just want the status quo to continue.

But, alas, that isn't working for either pit bulls or the communities who seek ways to control the problems they cause.

primrose

[mydogroxy]

[quote]Thus they say that education can't work, and they don't WANT laws. They just want the status quo to continue.
[/quote]
completely inaccurate.

:roll:

[Shenanigans]

[quote]Actually, I assume that people HAVE been "actively campaigning" against the passage of this law. That is, they have been writing letters and emailing each other and showing people pictures of cute pit bulls. I don't doubt the ability of the pit bull community to do that. [/quote]

If this is what you consider campaigning, then we obviously have different views of it, unless of course, that was an attempt at sarcasm, which really has no place in a serious discussion about breed specific legislation.

[quote]What I haven't seen much evidence of, however, is the willingness of the pit bull community to actually lobby for and make the kinds of changes that are necessary so that laws like this won't continue to be passed more and more places. That, is, to support real substantive change that will effectively address the problems that pit bulls have and cause, rather than just to try to convince people that pit bulls don't have or cause any problems. [/quote]

Please share how you've been connected to the Boston Pit Bull community and substantiate anything other than online awareness of lack of movement to do proactive work. I can safely say that in many places I have travelled and called, there are local and not so local organisations working at a grass roots level that really don't have an online presence, so if all you're relying on is that, then it's not much to go on.

[quote]As to the animal control budget in Boston, the law they just passed requires ALL pit bulls to be spayed/neutered (as well as to have large amounts of insurance coverage). So I guess enforcement authorities in Boston think that they can afford to pass/enforce a law that anticipates monitoring all pit bulls. And maybe they feel the way that I feel about my proposed law--so what if it is only sporadically enforced?[/quote]

LOL A committee that thinks that it has enough money to enforce this law, well that wouldn't be the first time. Technically in my city one is not to leave snow on the front of their sidewalk for more than 24 hours after a snowfall, guess how much that is enforced? A case of biting off more than they can chew.

[quote]If it is only enforced when some thug has seventeen dog aggressive pit bulls chained in a backyard and is breeding every bitch every six months and selling the puppies to drug dealers, wouldn't that still be a GOOD thing?[/quote]

The thug with seventeen dog aggressive pit bulls and selling to drug dealers. I grew up in an inner city community. Animal control was right down the street. Every drug dealer had a pit bull at the time. There were several "breeders" in the community, along with dog fighting rings, we knew the existence of it, but do you think anyone could find it? Usually thugs involved in the drug trade are fairly good at hiding their activities from the law, and certainly animal control. And I'm willing to bet that without assistance from a SWAT team animal control is not about to waltz into any thug's operation as you describe it, and I don't blame them!

If it stops one or two people from breeding a year is it really worth it? No, not in a city, not really, because other irresponsible breeders can easily pick up the slack. Thugs do a great job of networking with each other. And in the end, what's the penalty? If they go through all the trouble to stop some thug breeding nasty dogs, is there prison time? A fine? They take away his dogs? So what, he learns from his mistakes, moves more underground and starts all over again. Your solution can work fine in the short term, for one or two breeders, but what about the long term? What about when the thug realises that Dogos are a lot bigger, or Fila's are? Then what? Is Boston going to systematically ban each breed of dog based on the trend? As it currently stands I'm noticing a lot less pit bulls on the street and a lot more "exotic" breed being bandied about.

No one has yet to provide a solution of how going after one or two irresponsible breeders a year in the city of Boston for not breeding registered dogs is in any way workable or going to put a dint in it's problem with irresponsible breeding and dog ownership.

[quote]Wouldn't it beat (by a long shot) not having anything that one could do to stop that person which is (I guess) your proposal?... Or is the current situation just fine with you? [/quote]

If you want to discuss this rationally, I'll ask that you refrain from these accusations veiled as questions. You know nothing of my views and to "guess" otherwise simply because someone doesn't immediately agree with you is inflammatory, but since I've been on the forums since acmepet was born, I shrug it off. Heaven's, I might even agree with you on solutions or want to build on them, but this method of "the only good defense is an offense" way of discussing is no way to encourage open ideals and work on a solution. And if that is your true goal, I think you should re-examine your method, because you've certainly done a lot to alienate people who could be working with you. People who offline are probably doing a lot of good for their breed and this problem that you say is so near and dear to you. People who don't automatically agree with you aren't necessarily dog fighters, people who believe in irresponsible breeding or ownership. I don't even own a pit bull and never have. However I have a problem with breed specific legislation because I do happen to have a breed (GSD) that is covered more often than not.

Believe it or not, I don't have one magic solution to stopping irresponsible dog owners. I wish I did! Each community faces this problem in a unique way to them. In some rural communities it might be as simple as shutting down one or two breeders who are breeding dogs for fighting. In a large urban centre, I'd say tackling the problem from several workable approaches. Outreach, education, something with a little more teeth than a bylaw animal control has to enforce, getting rid of markets (such as drug dealers-it's funny, we're more concerned about the drug dealers dogs than we are the drug trade LOL) for irresponsibly bred dogs (and I say dogs as the trend seems to be moving away from pit bulls and into Dogos, Filas, Corsos and Neos). Having real penalties for irresponsibly bred dogs. Go to the state or province have some teeth in the law and not just a bylaw, make it enforced by the police in conjunction with animal control. Consult kennel clubs of all sorts to draft this legislation. They all seem like large undertakings and I'm sure far more expensive than shutting down one or two thugs a year, but I'm in this for the long haul.

If we can have an [b]open discussion [/b]on solutions, I'd bet that much could be accomplished. Anyhow, this is turning into a book and I have dogs to exercise.

[cheekymunkee]

[quote name='Shenanigans'][quote]Actually, I assume that people HAVE been "actively campaigning" against the passage of this law. That is, they have been writing letters and emailing each other and showing people pictures of cute pit bulls. I don't doubt the ability of the pit bull community to do that. [/quote]

If this is what you consider campaigning, then we obviously have different views of it, unless of course, that was an attempt at sarcasm, which really has no place in a serious discussion about breed specific legislation.

[quote]What I haven't seen much evidence of, however, is the willingness of the pit bull community to actually lobby for and make the kinds of changes that are necessary so that laws like this won't continue to be passed more and more places. That, is, to support real substantive change that will effectively address the problems that pit bulls have and cause, rather than just to try to convince people that pit bulls don't have or cause any problems. [/quote]

Please share how you've been connected to the Boston Pit Bull community and substantiate anything other than online awareness of lack of movement to do proactive work. I can safely say that in many places I have travelled and called, there are local and not so local organisations working at a grass roots level that really don't have an online presence, so if all you're relying on is that, then it's not much to go on.

[quote]As to the animal control budget in Boston, the law they just passed requires ALL pit bulls to be spayed/neutered (as well as to have large amounts of insurance coverage). So I guess enforcement authorities in Boston think that they can afford to pass/enforce a law that anticipates monitoring all pit bulls. And maybe they feel the way that I feel about my proposed law--so what if it is only sporadically enforced?[/quote]

LOL A committee that thinks that it has enough money to enforce this law, well that wouldn't be the first time. Technically in my city one is not to leave snow on the front of their sidewalk for more than 24 hours after a snowfall, guess how much that is enforced? A case of biting off more than they can chew.

[quote]If it is only enforced when some thug has seventeen dog aggressive pit bulls chained in a backyard and is breeding every bitch every six months and selling the puppies to drug dealers, wouldn't that still be a GOOD thing?[/quote]

The thug with seventeen dog aggressive pit bulls and selling to drug dealers. I grew up in an inner city community. Animal control was right down the street. Every drug dealer had a pit bull at the time. There were several "breeders" in the community, along with dog fighting rings, we knew the existence of it, but do you think anyone could find it? Usually thugs involved in the drug trade are fairly good at hiding their activities from the law, and certainly animal control. And I'm willing to bet that without assistance from a SWAT team animal control is not about to waltz into any thug's operation as you describe it, and I don't blame them!

If it stops one or two people from breeding a year is it really worth it? No, not in a city, not really, because other irresponsible breeders can easily pick up the slack. Thugs do a great job of networking with each other. And in the end, what's the penalty? If they go through all the trouble to stop some thug breeding nasty dogs, is there prison time? A fine? They take away his dogs? So what, he learns from his mistakes, moves more underground and starts all over again. Your solution can work fine in the short term, for one or two breeders, but what about the long term? What about when the thug realises that Dogos are a lot bigger, or Fila's are? Then what? Is Boston going to systematically ban each breed of dog based on the trend? As it currently stands I'm noticing a lot less pit bulls on the street and a lot more "exotic" breed being bandied about.

No one has yet to provide a solution of how going after one or two irresponsible breeders a year in the city of Boston for not breeding registered dogs is in any way workable or going to put a dint in it's problem with irresponsible breeding and dog ownership.

[quote]Wouldn't it beat (by a long shot) not having anything that one could do to stop that person which is (I guess) your proposal?... Or is the current situation just fine with you? [/quote]

If you want to discuss this rationally, I'll ask that you refrain from these accusations veiled as questions. You know nothing of my views and to "guess" otherwise simply because someone doesn't immediately agree with you is inflammatory, but since I've been on the forums since acmepet was born, I shrug it off. Heaven's, I might even agree with you on solutions or want to build on them, but this method of "the only good defense is an offense" way of discussing is no way to encourage open ideals and work on a solution. And if that is your true goal, I think you should re-examine your method, because you've certainly done a lot to alienate people who could be working with you. People who offline are probably doing a lot of good for their breed and this problem that you say is so near and dear to you. People who don't automatically agree with you aren't necessarily dog fighters, people who believe in irresponsible breeding or ownership. I don't even own a pit bull and never have. However I have a problem with breed specific legislation because I do happen to have a breed (GSD) that is covered more often than not.

Believe it or not, I don't have one magic solution to stopping irresponsible dog owners. I wish I did! Each community faces this problem in a unique way to them. In some rural communities it might be as simple as shutting down one or two breeders who are breeding dogs for fighting. In a large urban centre, I'd say tackling the problem from several workable approaches. Outreach, education, something with a little more teeth than a bylaw animal control has to enforce, getting rid of markets (such as drug dealers-it's funny, we're more concerned about the drug dealers dogs than we are the drug trade LOL) for irresponsibly bred dogs (and I say dogs as the trend seems to be moving away from pit bulls and into Dogos, Filas, Corsos and Neos). Having real penalties for irresponsibly bred dogs. Go to the state or province have some teeth in the law and not just a bylaw, make it enforced by the police in conjunction with animal control. Consult kennel clubs of all sorts to draft this legislation. They all seem like large undertakings and I'm sure far more expensive than shutting down one or two thugs a year, but I'm in this for the long haul.

If we can have an [b]open discussion [/b]on solutions, I'd bet that much could be accomplished. Anyhow, this is turning into a book and I have dogs to exercise.[/quote]

Not much I can add to this except Good Post!

edit: Primmy, why does it bother you so much that people post pictures of their pit bulls? On just about every post you have made a snide comment about it, why all the hate?? Do you REALLY think that in the couple of minutes it took us to post our pictures we could have made THAT big of an impact? Do you REALLY beleive we could have done something that people all over the country who are fighting BSL could NOT ? If so....what? Tell us.

Debby

[cheekymunkee]

[img]http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_8_5.gif[/img]

:drinking:

Debby