-
maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
hey guys i was just wondering where you guys stand on this new law maryland is proposing. it is sopoesed to be for viscious dogs and pit bulls, but seems to be almost only breed specific. it goes like this:
CRIMINAL LAW - PIT BULLS AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOGS
FOR the purpose of including certain dogs defined as pit bulls within
the
definition of "dangerous dogs" in certain provisions of law that
apply to
owners of dangerous dogs; ......
10-619.
(a) (1) In this section the following words have the meanings
indicated.
(2) "Dangerous dog" means a dog that:
(i) without provocation has killed or inflicted severe injury on a
person
(ii) is determined by the appropriate unit of a county or municipal
corporation under subsection (c) of this section to be a potentially
dangerous dog and after the determination is made:
1. Bites a person
2. when not on the owner's property, kills or inflicts severe injury
on a
domestic animal
3. attacks without provocation; OR
(III) IS A PIT BULL
(3) "PIT BULL" MEANS A DOG THAT:
(I) IS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING BREEDS:
1. BULL TERRIER
2. AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER
3. STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER
4. AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER
5. AMERICAN BULLDOG ; OR
(II) IS OF MIXED BREED BUT PREDOMINANTLY POSSESSES THE APPEARANCE AND
CHARACTERISTICS OF ONE OF THE BREEDS SPECIFIED IN ITEM (I) OF THIS
PARAGRAPH..........
(d) A dog owner may not:
(1) leave a dangerous dog unattended on the owner's property
unless the
dog is:
(i) confined indoors
(ii) in a securely enclosed and locked pen; or
(iii) in another structure designed to restrain the dog; or
(2) allow a dangerous dog to leave the owner's real property unless
the dog
is leashed and muzzled or is otherwise restrained and muzzled.
alright here are my thoughts yes anyone that has a dangerous dog should take care of the problem, but a dog is not dangerous just because of what breed it is. the only dog that i am personally afriad of is my friends chow, but its not a pitbull. did you know that the chow is a pit fighting dog? did you know that a sharpeii is a pit figing dog? they are both perfectly legal. did you know that the labrador retriever breed all color combined has the highest bite incedence with humans? yet they are perfectly legal. ever heard of a dogo argintino? well they are bigger then pitbull and bred to bite people, but they are legal.
yes i realize that humans have ruined the pit bull breed, and that many people are afraid of them because of stereotypes, but that are not inherently evil dogs. breed specific legislation is wrong.
as a disclamer, i think that any kind of dog fighting for entertainment is gross and horrilbe, and do not condone it in any way.
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
All laws are brought about because of the actions or gross in-actions of people.
ALL dogs can bite. Some breeds just do it better. Pit bulls are one of those breeds.
In 95% of the drug-infested neighborhoods we patrol, pit bulls or relatives are present. Why so many pit bulls?
Why don'y we see Lhasa Apsos, Weenie dogs, Pekinese, poodles, etc?
You are likely to see a few more breeds added to the dangerous list in the future.
It's a shame that dopers have adopted the pit bull as their mascot.
It's the same with the Confederate Battle flag. It's a shame it was adopted by the KKK as as it's symbol.
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
What's most interesting to me is that this law is being proposed at the state level. As far as I can tell, only one state (Ohio) has such a law. Animal control is almost univerally accomplished at the municipality level (county, city). Even this MD law defers to the municipalities for determining visciousness.
I have heard of lots of municpalities having regulations specific to certain breeds, typically pit bulls and not so often rottweillers.
I do know that already in Montgomery County MD (because my wife has been a police officer in that jurisdiction and had regular interactions with animal control) if a pit bull is picked up stray, that is a death sentence almost guaranteed. They will not return a stray pit bull to the owner without lots of justification and assurance it won't happen again.
I think you're right that bad owners have ruined the pit bull breed and that dogs should be judged on temperament and not breed (you didn't mention also akitas). However, the number of serious bite incidents involving pit bulls has dictated some sort of special scrutiny and regulation. Not an outright ban on ownership, but I think at the minimum complete and total owner control at all times should be required.
And yes I have met several gentle pit bulls, too, but the prospective owner of a pit bull should be prepared for this extra scrutiny and regulation going into the ownership. I think that's what the laws are intended for, and not to make a statement about current owners who have non-viscious pet dogs.
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
where you guys stand on this new law maryland is proposing
[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds good to me. It doesn't ban you from having a pit bull; only requires that it be restrained from injuring or killing others.
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
you are right i didnt mention akitas, but i felt i was being long winded as it is. there are so many pit fighting breeds that people dont realize are pit fighting breeds. the akita, the tosa, the sharpei, the chow, the dogo argintino, the mastiffs (neopolitin, spainish, french, asian), the bulldogs(american, british, and bulldogge), the staffies(american and english), bull terriers, bandogs. and i am sure there are many that ihave missed.
i am okay with this law so long as they dont make it breed specific. if someones golden kills another dog it should be muzzled, if someones pit bull doesnt, it shouldnt be.
yes it is a travisty that drug dealers have made the pit bull their mascot. especially because pitt bulls are horrible gaurd dogs. they were never ment to be. they were ment to fight other dogs in a ring. they dont care about property or space the way a mastiff or doberman does.
as for someone having complete control of their, while a good idea, it will never happen. for that matter no human can have complete control over anydog. i feel that all dogs should be kept under control, and that you should know your dog well enough to know what situations you can put them in. for example i know that i cannot walk my hunting dog around a school in the afternoon, becuase she is afraid of sreaming running children. i know this is bad news, so for this reason i stay away from schools with her.
i blame most of it on stupid humans. we over breed animals, breed them for barbaric purposes, and then blame the animal for doing what we wanted them to do.
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
Hello Stephen.
The insurance company I work for maintains a list of dogs. If you own one of these dogs, we won't carry your insurance. Period. They don't want to hear that the dog is 20 years old and no longer has teeth, has never bitten anyone, and never goes outside. If it's on the company's list, you aren't on theirs. The Pit Bull is on the list, along with "vicious animals" and "animals with a bite history". Does the company do this for fun? No, they're out to make money. They have data that substantiates their rules.
Unfortunately, many folks are not responsible pet owners. This also goes beyond restraint of an animal that poses a threat to people and other animals, but that is the topic for another discussion.
I hate to see more laws put on the books.
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
Insurer "Bad Breeds" Blacklist? Comments
Allstate Yes--pit bulls, Staffordshire Terriers, Doberman Pinschers, Rottweilers, Chows, Presa Canarios, Akitas, wolf-hybrids, and Huskies. No new policies will be written for owners of these breeds.
AIG Yes--pit bulls, Doberman Pinschers, Rottweilers.
Axa Yes
Clarenden Yes
Farmers Insurance Group No Prospective policyholders are asked to report whether they have a "vicious animal" on the premises. Once there is a claim, the pet is specifically excluded from coverage. The company also won't take new business from people who have had dog-bite claims in the last three years, even if the family no longer owns the pet.
Liberty Mutual Yes--Akitas, Alaskan Malamutes, Chows, Doberman Pinschers, German Shepherds, pit bulls or Staffordshire Terriers, Rottweilers, Siberian Huskies, Presa Canarios.
Mixed-breed dogs have to be verified by a veterinarian to not be predominantly any of these breeds before policy will be issued.
Mercury Casualty Company No Offers 10% discount for families that don't own a dog or are willing to take their dog off their policy.
Nationwide Yes--Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, pit bulls, Presa Canarios, Chows or wolf-hybrids.
Prudential No May vary from state to state.
Qualsure Insurance Corp. Yes--Akitas, Chows, Doberman Pinschers, pit bulls, Presa Canarios and Rottweilers.
State Farm No If there has been a bite history, the company will ask that the offending dog be removed from the home.
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
I have noticed that the State of Maryland is one of those that has a legislature that believes everything possible under the sun needs regulation. You either change the politics of your state or you move away from there. Nevada seems to be the least likely to stick its nose into every little thing, but it is the fastest growing state, so that may not last.
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
How about a lesser of evils comment? Pet control laws in general and specifically dog regulations shouldn't be required in an ideal world. Is this an ideal world? Do we need any form of regulation?
Personally I'd rather see folks walking down the street with holstered pistols than certain breeds of dogs on leashes. Dogs "go off" for reasons that can easily be out of the range of understanding and control of their owners. In an age when people won't even make their children mind them why should we suppose that an animal bred to kill will behave better?
In a perfect world, I'd be happy to see responsible knowlegeable dog owner/handlers permitted to have the nastiest animals capable of being bred, if controlled and contained such that they don't end up in the insurance companies statistics. In the real world there is a distinct difference between ownership of something capable of being used in a harmful manner or causing harm and something which by design (breeding) has a demonstrated capability of causing harm when not intended.
Folks argue that we don't need private ownership of nuclear weapons, personal stockpiles of ricin, botulus or a collection of "war gasses" in operable cylinders. Maybe so, but these items don't have a mind of their own and don't "go off" on innocent victims due to some complex web of causality.
The "ALL FREEDOM TO THE PEOPLE" types should consider what it would be like if there was a fad for people to go to a store and buy a time bomb with a blast radius of (whatever the average leash length is) and a detonation timer that is totally random so that it might never go off and or it might go of in the check out lline while buying it. These bomb cultists would then walk around carrying their bomb with them whenever and wherever they felt like it.
Owner/users of some bombs would argue that they had been carrying a bomb for years and years and it never went off or hurt anyone (it could even be a fake bomb for all we know.) How would a regular citizen know that it was safe to walk down the sidewalk if he saw someone coming who was wearing a bomb? What about the bomb toters who take their bomb off their waist and toss it down a hill at the park where it might roll past or up to an innocent family on picnic who have no way of preparing for a random "bomb attack?"
I could go on with this or any number of analogies but those whose ox is being gored won't agree with me and many others will. There is a point to this. There is a clear dividing line between types of risk. There is the risk that someone with a gun, knife, chucks, sword, throwing stars, or whatever will suddenly whip them out and try to hurt someone. This is an afirmative action on the part of the weapon carrying person. None of these weapons "go off" on innocent passers by by "accident." Dogs bred to kill or otherwise of poor "moral character" can "go off" irrespective of the intent of the owner and are the equivalent of carrying the bomb with a random timer.
Insurance statistics are compiled from ACTUAL REAL WORLD happenings and are not hypothetical. Dogs bite. Some dogs bite more. Some dogs are bred to bite. I think dogs can be great companions, excellent partners in stock handling, boost the well being of those who pet them and on and on and on. What is the purpose...what need is being fulfilled by owning and displaying a known dangerous breed? If you need a guard dog or a flock defender or any of a number of "legitimate" reasons to have a potantially aggressive dog, use it for its intended purpose. What is the big deal regarding dogs bred to kill? Why do we need them in a suburban or metropolitan setting. Why is there even a question of the correctness of purposely parading a randomly fused time bomb around in a public place?
What is it that "THIS" particular dog does for someone that a gentler breed can't do that needs to be done in a public setting? I think folks should be able to carry a gun and shoot it in a safe manner where it won't cause harm to others. I wouldn't condone folks whipping out their piece and taking a few random shots at the pidgeons in the park
Whether or not particular breeds should even exist or continue to exist is a different debate not unlike whether or not there should be private ownership of war gasses and A-bombs. Whether or not they should be allowed in public or controlled to prevent public contact is a different debate. At any rate a person would have to make a conscious decision to release a gas or detonate a bomb. Most owners of dangerous dogs don't make a conscious decision for their dog to bite someone but according to the best information available it happens enough to require legisation to protect the public from unwarranted attack.
You can't legislate common sense or morality. The best legislation is usually flawed but is the only recourse that society has to try to control events that would have better been controlled by common sense and morality.
Pat
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
pat well put. here is my only issue, this law in my opinion shouldbe to protect us from violent animals. if we are going to strictly go by the inurance numbers then labradors should be illigal because they bite more people then any other dog. alot of it has to do with perception and politics. any dog for any reason can attack a person, should they all be out lawed? we aleady have leash laws and control laws, so no dogs should be out running around able to freely attack things. so why not make the law to contain and muzzle dogs that we know are violent?
example. took my puppy to the vet last week. when we get there we are wisked into the "cat" room because and other patient is leaving, and the owner refuses to muzzle his dog that has bitten many other dogs and people. its a dalmation. according to what you wrote, if i read corectly, this dog is not a time bomb ready to go off because of its breed. make sense? not to me. breed specific laws dont work. some people like the way a breed looks. some people dont realize what their dog is ment to do. some people rescue dogs and dont know where they came from. any tortured dog is going to do what it had to do. to keep alive.
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
kokopelli, Funny you should mention the Dalmation, as the list I saw gave it the nod as the #1 biter, as reported by emergency rooms. I found that most ironic given the tremendous number of Dalmation puppies flooding into homes with children due to the influence of the 101 Dalmation and sequels and cartoons that came out.
About the owner refusing to muzzle a known biter... Don't you see a series of problems here? A vet office with no private exit should refuse service to an owner who refuses to conform to requirements for public safety. The Dalmation owner of course exhibits classic arrogance and stupidity and is making a case for retroactive abortion and or euthanasia based on extreme need in his case, not the dog's.
For either of us, or anyone for that matter, to try to prove the general case by citing specific, potentially non-typical, examples is not productive. Insurance companies understand risk very well, especially in aggregate. You might not like the way they ameliorate it but you should understand that they are experts in risk analysis and to "bet" against them is not a smart thing.
In a specific example, you might have a dog of the most aggressive, attack prone, and damage causing breed on the planet that has a "good" personality, has been well trained and sociallized by you, and has NEVER hurt you or any other person but that doesn't make that dog safe in any situation where uncontrolled things might happen involving others. It is the waist mounted bomb that has been worn for years and has never exploded so far to date. The breed is "wired to attack and kill" and could and would if the right circumstances occured.
I do appreciate your feelings regarding the fact that you may have had this and other dogs of this type, trouble free, for decades and resent rules that interfere with your activities. How are you going to to differentiate to society the difference between your dog and the others of its breed?
There are laws that require your car to have operable lights although you might NEVER drive in reduced illumination. Are these laws unfair or wrong? There are often situations where the "granularity" of a law makes no accomodation for subtle differences. In Oklahoma, a recent vote outlawed cock fighting and the keeping of fighting chicken breeds. Folks with a hidden agenda raised all sorts of specious arguments about imprisoning innocent chicken fanciers who might not realize some half breed chicken was part game cock and illegal to own.
The breeds are outlawed as well as the intended activity for which the breed exists. The argument is raised about just raising the chickens to raise them not to fight, just to raise. The law quite plainly outlaws the breed and the activity for which it was meant. I have little sympothy for the poor deprived chicken fancier that sits in the corner with tears streaming down their face because of a thwarted desire to raise fighting cocks. There are plenty of other kinds of chickens that can fill just about any need you can name.
I feel pretty close to the same way about dog breeds and tools. If you are trying to drive a screw, use a screw driver. Sure, you can drive a screw with a hammer or clear the ants from the picnic area with a massive air strike of napalm but these might not be the first choice of a cautious citizen. If you want a dead bird retrieved and not eaten, get a retriever. If you want rats harassed get a rat terrier. If you want something bigger like a big dog or a person attacked and killed get a dog bred and genetically programmed to attack and kill. Why is it surprising that dog breeds developed expressly for attacking and killing, will in fact attack and kill?
Any breed can be trained to be nasty and nippy but can a breed expressly programmed genetically to attack and kill be reliably trained to be a gentle companion dog? To my way of thinking, this should never be an issue because if you want a gentle breed get a gentle breed and if you want something to attack and kill get a matching breed. The right tool for the job. Don't saw logs with a nail file or drive screws with a sledgehammer.
There are always odities and people who for whatever reason "need" to be involved with them. I have seen guys juggle running chainsaws instead of balls or Indian clubs but think it would be inappropriate to do it while running through a crowd. It is an inappropriate risk to impose on other non-consenting members of society.
If you want to go out in the forrest somewhere and live with wolves (and not hurt them) society shouldn't mind. If on the other hand you choose to bring the wolves to live with you in your midtown Manhattan appartment and run with them in Central Park, then I think it is appropriate for society to intervene for public safety. Pit bulls and the like are dogs, directly descended from wolves, like all other breeds recognized by the AKC, except they are specifically bred for the purpose of attacking and killing. It is literally, their nature. Why choose to try to layer on a veneer of socialization onto a born and bred killer if what you want is some form of companion dog or guard dog, or companion/guard dog? Why substitute C-4 for modeling clay if what you claim to want is the atributes of modeling clay?
//SOAPBOX MODE OFF//
OK, I'll quit ranting and let you 'splain it to me.
[img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
Pat
Very thoughtful essay. I am of the opinion that we should have minimal government, whose purpose is to protect the citizen. Maryland may be the only Eastern state that is more intent than Massachusetts in attempting to Legislate every aspect of human behavior. It appears that the legislators want the public to answer to them rather than the elected officials having to answer to the public. That said, I think this may be a legitemate answer to protect the public. While other dogs may bite, I don't think that I have read about too many other breeds that have savagely attacked and mauled humans in the way that pit bulls have. It seems that every week I read about some case of an elderly woman or a young child being savagely mauled by a pit bull. Pit bulls are "pit" dogs. Put in a pit to fight another dog. The winner is bred with another winner. The loser is killed by the other dog or is dispatched by its owner. Through years of breeding a very aggressive killer has developed. The breeders now use the euphemism "protective". The owners are proud of their "killer" dogs. When they kill there is mock surprise.
In a society with no laws i think that the public would kill pit bulls on sight if they were running free.
Consider now a society where owners of dogs were responsible for the actions of their dogs. If a dog bit someone the owner was charged with assault and battery. If the dog tore off someones ear the owner was charged with mayhem. If the dog savagely mauled and killed someone the owner was charged with murder with extreme cruelty and atrocity and was executed. How many people would own pit bulls?
My opinion is that the majority of pit bull owners either overtly or secretly take pride in the fact that they own "killer" dogs. They should not be surprised that society tries to protect itself from these killer dogs.
RonL
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
Ron, Thanks for hanging a good descriptor on my rant. I certainly agree that the best government is the least Government required for the common good. A country, our society, is subject to many of the forces at work in biology. It is encumbent on the society to do that which is necccessary and sufficient to sustain itself as a viable entity or it will become obsolete/extinct. If we change enough of the things that made us great we will cease to be great.
One of the things that has made us great is to create an environment that permits the maximum personal freedom so long as you don't endanger others. We didn't become great by pandering to the widest possible range of anomolous behavior or by being afraid to do the right thing because it might hurt some finge person's or group's feelings. At the rate we are going these days I wouildn't be surprised to see a case come before the supreme court on the topic of virgin sacrifice of a consenting adult in the name of 1st ammendment rights and religious freedom.
I know I haven't made a strong case for why someone with a dog of good training and character that has never "acted out" should be "lumped together" with other members of his breed. I would ask you to recall the Aesop's Fable about the scorpion. If that isn't to your liking, note the law regarding max diameter of the barrel of private owned firearm. Look for the use of the term "destructive device." It matters not that you never load the thing, much less use it, and that unused it is impossible that it would be a source of danger to you or anyone else, it is illegal to possess. ILLEGAL TO POSSESS end of story. Our elected officials acting in the interest of the citizens of the country decided that the public having such devices was NOT A GOOD IDEA. So, personal freedom be damned, they acted for public safety.
I have difficulty differentiating between these examples and ownership of certain dangerous animals. I know a lot of "exotic" pet owners with leopards and such would feel like I was trampling their personal freedom. I would rather see full automatic weapons "street legal" than continue to read about dog maulings. I think there would be less loss of innocent life due to automatic weapns.
[img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
Look how low the human race has fallen. Dogs ain't at the top of the food chain, humans are. Don't cower in fear, attack back. Learn were dogs are vulnerable and go for those spots. Use a cane to walk with and no dog can bite you if you are aware of its presence. If you are not aware, shame on you. The problem with "REASONABLE" legislation or requirements is that you always have someone to whom reason means total control.
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
Slamfire, I don't know about the human race, I don't even know who is entered much less who to bet on to win place or show. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
In California it is a felony to kick a dog. I don't know how much worse it would be if you used a club (Cane). Maybe if you hit the ground, rolled over and exposed your throat in a submissive gesture to the attacking "alpha male" you would be spared.
Uh, by the way re your food chain comment, are you suggesting that the dog be eaten?
[img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
I'm acquainted with the California victimwealth. [img]/forums/images/icons/crazy.gif[/img] I lived there for 33 years. It might be illegal to kick or hit a dog, but tearing the lower jaw off of one would seem to be an act or self defense. Of course that's what I'd plead regardless. By the way don't kick dogs, they can bite your leg. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
Slamfire, I "did" about the same amount of time in the Great Victimwealth of California as you, '63-00' with 4 years off for good behavior (USAF). Never heard it called Victimwealth before but I LIKE IT.
[img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
My name is Kri and I own an Amstaff Terrier. She is the best dog I've ever had, (besides my Sheltie). I have three children including a nine month old baby.
It's true that people are responsible for how a dog is raised and therfore also responsible for it's actions in the community. My Amstaff has shown no sighns of agressive behavior because she is well trained and well loved, infact if she shows any sighn of an "undesireable" behavior it's excitement (sitting in your lap, licking you to death, and trying to sleep in the bed) but at an early age (1 month) she has been taught not to bite or even bark. She knows her place in the family, well maybe because she thinks she's one of the kids.
I think if there were any ban to be in place it should be on what kind of owner takes on this amazing and versitile dog. To ban this breed or any of it's cousins would be a sad day for Maryland, yet an illuminating light on just how selfish and unintelligent some people can be. Hope this gives some insight for those who don't own or know an Amstaff or an APBT.
-Kri
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
Yes, it's a sad thing when people are against the breed more than the deed or what happened to cause an accident or incident. Sort of like that case several years ago where Colt was named in a lawsuit just because they manufactured the gun.
I have a PBT in my boarding kennel right now and I think of about the 12 or so I've boarded over the last 1-1/2 years, this is the first one where the owner actually told me what he had. I've had some people trying to tell me they are Boxer mixes until they bring them in and I can see for myself, then I get a "we weren't sure if you would board a pitbull".
In my experience Min Poodles and Dacshunds are much more likely to be the nasty boarder that always tries to fence fight with you and growl at you for no reason. Others kennel operators have said Poms are their worst. Of course they aren't going to do the damage a larger dog can and that's why they don't make the papers as often. I didn't report the Min Pin (all 8 lbs of her) that jumped off the floor and layed my finger open for no reason. All I was doing was standing there talking to the owner in my office. The owner didn't correct the dog and when I asked her why she told me that Coco was only being protective. When I asked her if she felt I was threatening her she said no, so I asked her what her dog was protecting her from then?... It didn't take long to figure out why she was looking for a new kennel to use. I don't mind a tough acting or nervous acting dog, after all, they could very well be a little stressed, but the owner should realize what they have and there are way too many people that don't think you need to socialize lap dogs.
FYI, Welsh Corgis were put on Italy's dangerous breed list last year. It won't stop at the "usual" breeds.
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
It's amazing how people have worked so hard to breed such wounderful animals only to turn on them after isolated incidents. The really sad thing is like you said, mainly the big dogs are being shown in a bad light because people think the little ones are to small to cause harm. Agressiveness comes in all shapes and sizes. There are millions of dog lovers out there and we should work together to speak for our bestfriends. A single man can't hold back a flood but many can build a ****. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]
-Kri
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
In the current news a grandmother put her 16 month old grandchild on the floor to play with the family pitbull. The pitbull killed the infant and bit off the grandmother's finger when she attempted to save the child. Nothing to worry about, though.
RonL
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
Ron, I get the impression that your opinion of pit bulls might be about like my own. I can see no more reason for anyone owning a pit bull than I can see for them to own a lion or tiger. And of course any animal can be trained to be safe, right? Just ask Sigfeid and Roy. And the same is true of pit bulls.
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
Bird, Bird, Bird, what happened to your detached layed back PC demeanor. You are treading on the fabric of America by attacking the relaltionship of a boy and his dog. Ever see the movie, "A Boy and His Dog" a post apocaliptic tale ending in the boy and his dog eating a female companion.
Next thing we know you will take a stand against personal nuclear arsenals, personal stockpiles of chemical and biological warfare agents. This is America! Why shouldn't you be able to exercise free speach in a crowded public forum by shouting fire!
Why shouldn't someone be allowed to freely move among us at will or to otherwise interface with the public with a dog expressly bred to kill? After all "that particular dog" may not have ever attacked anyone, yet. That particular atom bomb has never exploded before so why not allow me to carry it around ?
Just what is it about folks enjoying personal freedom that you don't like?
Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
why is no one asking why on earth anyone would put their infant grandchild on the floor to play with any dog? have you guys lost your common sense? i think everyone expects all creatures to cowtow to humans. wasnts anyone taught that you dont look a dog in the eyes? i realize that we created pitbulls to fight. i also know that infants automaticly look into the eyes of those around it to make a connection. this is going to add to trouble with any breed. growing up my best friend got 24 stitches from a black lab....oh my the most friendly dog mauled a human....it happens. all he did was look at it.
i also know that there are many different lines of pit bulls, just like there are many different lines of labs. have you guys delt with hunting labs alot? most of the strictly hunting dogs i have delt with are not friendly and i would not let them near my kids unattended.....i would not let any dog near my kids unattended.
you guys have to think about what you are doing to your kids, not just what evil animal you are afraid of.
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
on another note this bill was not passed in maryland because it was too breed specific.
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
[img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
Exactly kokopelli! True post.
Not sure what side of the fence the satirical post is sitting on... I read it two ways, but why stop at nuclear weapons? Maybe no person should own any type of weapon. Maybe we should give up our right to keep and bear arms, too. I'm not an anthropologist, but I would bet money that the first stone cutting tools were not created to trim the fat off of one's meat or butter some bread. Maybe nobody should own a knife either. After all these too are accidents waiting to happen.
Pit Bulls were NOT created to attack man. Thay were bred to fight each other, to be dog aggressive and that's a fact. Any well bred pit type dog has to be able to be handled a lot and not always by its owner. They have attained a bad image due to people's irresponsibilty in owning them and the breed being too numerous and easy to obtain at a low price, thus becoming the dog of choice for "ghetto types". This is also the reason the breedings are so poor and this has happened to many other breeds of dogs.
I know one kennel owner that will not board any Golden Retrievers that come from her area. She has been bitten by them one too many times.
In Maryland in 2002 a Dachshund ate through a baby's crib and mauled a 6 week old boy. By some of the reasoning I have read this is obviously the dog's fault, right?
I am dead set against breed racism. Any type of laws promoting this will only do the same as government imposed gun laws. It will keep honest people from owning them and do nothing to stop the others.
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
I'm so happy to see that someone has done thier homework!!!! It's a fact that pitbulls had to be human freindly in order to fight. Before each fight the handlers were to wash eachother's dogs to make sure no poisons were on the dogs coat and if a pitbull was agressive towards humans in the fighting industry it was put to sleep. Every one talks about how pitbulls were bred to kill but people should make sure of what they were bred to kill. Any animal has it within them to be destructive and even kill. Humans, dogs, cats, it does not matter. The best way to handle the situation is to be responsible because if we left it up to banning nothing would be legal!
-Kri
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls *DELETED*
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
Geez. I never really looked at it that way. It really was that 16 month old childs fault for looking into the eyes of the dog. And that 86 year old woman the week before. And that 10 year old girl the week before that. We really should have a pitbull safety course in all the schools. That way people will know enough not to look into the eyes of a pitbull.
I also apologize. I did not realize that pitbulls were selectively bred to only kill certain species. They're smarter than I thought. How enlightening.
RonL
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls *DELETED* *DELETED*
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
Egon, Was it so anemic that you had to ask? Read/reread my previous posts/rants in this thread. I didn't think I left much doubt about my position.
Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
Well, it was well written,and some could come to other conclusions Pat.
I'd like to expound on my opinion of dog traits and owner personalities but it is best left in limbo.
We do have a dog and a cat.
Egon
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
Egon, Others HAVE come to other conclusions. Many conclude that keeping dogs and letting them come in contact with the public or non-consenting public and children too young to give informed consent is just fine because... well just because.
Gee, I wonder why governments pass laws to prevent patently DUMB things from hurting innocent members of society? Terrible isn't it that someones "RIGHTS" are trampled in the name of common sense and public safety.
Why can't I carry grenades on the street and let kids play with them if I don't intend to set one off?
Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
Pat:
Had more than a couple of discusions with the owners of dogs who seemed intent on taking me and my bicycle home. Police had a few discusions with the owners too.
Egon
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
I can see that some of my comments have come underfire and everyone is entilteld to thier opinion but I would like to say that I defend these dogs as a responsible dog owner. I don't let my Amstaff run the streets to prey on the innocent nor is she loose in my home to mangle unknown guests when they arrive. I don't leave my infant alone with her not becuse she's part of the "pitbull" family but because she's a dog and even the best can "go bad". I don't condone dog fights nor having your pet unleased. I know as a pet owner that I'm the first line of defense and it's MY responsibility to make sure that nither people or her is in a situation. I believe that people who can't be responible for thier pets shouldn't have one. It's unfortunate that I'm looked at as a bad person because of how other people I've never met have been irresponible owners. I love Nala and she is wounderful with my children, she wouldn't be in my home if I couldn't be responible for her. Besides the training I give Nala, my older 2 children are well schooled in how we are to behave with animals because of thier instincts. If I couldn't or didn't want to take these measures, my family would only own fish. I just wanted to let everyone know where I'm coming from. I'm not some "killer dog" keeper who intentionaly places danger on my community and condones the death of innocents. I wish that people wouldn't apply the horror stories to all of these dogs and thier owners because to say that they are all as dangerous as walking down the street with armed grenades is wrong. There are those out there who care and are responsible and make safety a priority. I also feel that some of the accusations placed on these animals can also be said about many large animals. Unfortunatly the Pitbull has been used for alot wrong reasons and still is but please don't just assume, try to read more on these dogs, not just the bad things. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
-Kri
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I just feel like God gave us the ability to think abstractly and to understand so we should use this knowlege to learn and grow.
[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely right. And I'd be willing to bet money the day will come when you'll "think" and "learn" and want nothing to do with pit bulls, just as a lot of other people have learned. We just hope it doesn't take the death of, or serious injury to, one of your children, or especially someone else's child.
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
I don't know what to say to that becuse I've tried to explain. What I really want to know now is how many personal experinces (not from the papers or here say) (good or bad) have you or any one reading this had with an American Staffordshire Terrier? They of course are not the same as a Pitbull. But maybe since so many people comment on this subject I am missing something, as some suggest, because all of my experiences have been good ones and I feel like I need personal accounts. You bet money that my dog will seriously injure or kill one of my children and that's a sick bet to place so please tell me of your experiences of face to face encounters with these dogs (under good ownership) I need to know if all encounters have ended in the hospital or mourge. Have you read any in depth info. on this breed from the AKC? There are also many websites dedicated to these dogs with good owners in mind. And please don't bet on my childrens or any other childs demise agin. I'm not being mean or rude but I don't appreciate it. [img]/forums/images/icons/frown.gif[/img] -Kri
-
Re: maryland state wants to ban pitbulls
Kri
What I am saying is not a personal attack on you. It is a rational discussion of what I believe to be a dangerous situation. I understand about labeling breeds. I have had Bullmastiffs for over twenty years. The dogs have come from champiomship lines from AKC registered breeders. They have been bred through generations for "disposition". "Disposition" in this case means being non aggressive family dogs. Pit bulls on the other hand have been bred through the centuries to be "pit" dogs. That is, they were bred to be aggressive killers. They were bred to kill other dogs in a pit. As i said previously, other dogs may bite but it seems to be becoming a weekly event that a pitbull savagely mauls and kills someone. I believe you are a responsible and loving pitbull owner. I would like to meet you as you would be the only responsible pitbull owner I have ever met. I have been set upon by a pitbull while attempting to arrest a drug dealer. It was a savage and primeval battle. One of us was going to die. I beat the dog off with my baton as I had it in my hand. The dog rolled off and came back in for the kill. I dropped my baton, drew my weapon, and shot the dog. I'm always up for a good fight but it tears my heart to think of a 16 month old baby or an 86 year old woman being torn apart like that. I still have the scars. On another occasion I happened upon a pack of pitbulls that had decided to turn on one of its own. Again, it was savage and primeval. They were tearing the dog apart in the middle of an apartment courtyard. I approached the pack with my weapon drawn. For an instant it appeared that the dogs were going to turn on me . The dogs broke and ran. The victim dog continued to growl at me as it tried to drag itself away on its broken legs. it's belly was torn open. The pack headed towards a school that was out on recess. We were able to warn them. With the help of animal control we were able to round up all but one of the dogs. It took two people with lasso sticks to get each dog into the van. My neighbor was in poor health. He was going for dialysis. He would sit outside with his big fat housecat. The cat was on a leash. While sitting at the computer that I am writing this on, i heard a commotion outside my window. I looked out and saw my neighbor trying to wrestle his cat away from a pitbull that had the cat by the stomach. The dogs owner was watching with amusement. He had a big chain across his shoulders. I ran out and tried to get a clear shot at the dog. When the dogs owner saw that I was going to shoot his dog he jumped on the dog and pulled him off the cat. I had words with the idiot. Later my neighbors told me that the idiot had deliberately come into the yard and let his dog loose. The idiot left town with his dog shortly thereafter. A crack house in the Main South area of the city was raided. Animal control Officers obtained a second search warrant, brought in a backhoe, and dug up the carcasses of 28 dogs. Shortly afterwards, my unit was conducting a sweep of that area. A gentleman approached me and handed me some flyers and asked me to be on the lookout for his missing border collie. He lived out in the suburbs but his daughter lived down the street from the crack house. She had been watching his dog while he was on vacation. The gentleman told me the dogs name and that the dog would come if I called the dogs name. I did not have the heart to tell him that the dog was probably grabbed and thrown in with the "pits" for practice. I have more of these experiences. None good. I will stand by what I said in an earlier post. Pitbull owners either openly or secretly take pride in the fact that their dogs were bred to be killers. They should not be surprised when the public tries to protect itself from them.
I hold a particularly low point of view of people that fight dogs. I don't believe that they have the b**** to fight themselves. They live vicariously through their dogs.
I always remember a quote from Jeff Cooper, the gun guru: " A dog is an alarm. If a man has fighting to do he should do it himself".
RonL