Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Now it’s the county’s turn
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Scholz; Swift; Target Feeds (use all CAPS in password)
Posted in:
First, the setup.
Pushing back against what they called unfair media coverage, dog advocates said Saturday that the public would be better served by laws that target bad owners–not pit bulls or Rottweilers.The 2006 Canine Legislation Conference, held in downtown Chicago, may be the first of its kind to devote its entire agenda to “breed-specific legislation,” or laws that target dogs like pit bulls, according to national animal advocacy groups in attendance.
Organizers said they hope it is the beginning of a more focused and sophisticated response to a slew of municipal laws that ban specific breeds of dog. […]
“It’s like banning red SUVs if a loved one is run over by a red SUV,” Armstrong said. “I know it’s like the [National Rifle Association], but it’s true. You don’t punish the dog or all dog owners because of one bad owner.”
And now the question.
Do you agree that owners should be the focus of punishment and not specific breeds of dogs? Why or why not?
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 4:41 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Now it’s the county’s turn
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Scholz; Swift; Target Feeds (use all CAPS in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I completely agree.
I’d like to see the same standard we hold handgun/assault rifle owners and manufacturers applied to ‘assault dogs’.
I want mandatory registration for owners, I want breeders held liable if one of their products is used in an assault, I want background checks on owners before they acquire their assault dog (have they been convicted previously for assault dog incidents? Are they mentally prepared to own such a weapon?). And I want extra fees piled on owners to pay for it all.
Of course, any municipality should have a right to protect its residents and children by passing ordinances banning assault dogs.
There is really no difference in my mind between the pain and suffering caused by assault rifles and that caused by assault dogs. There is no clause in the constitution that says assault dogs ownership is a right.
Comment by A worried mother Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 6:29 am
Profiling? PROFILING???
Even if you absolutely know that certain few of a group of ________ is dangerous to others, you cannot possibly legislate against the entire group.
WWwwhhyyy I’m aghast!
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 6:50 am
Gosh. I hope ‘A Worried Mother’ is playing Devil’s Advocate in order to show the foolishness of Breed specific legislation.
If not, I hope their only civic outlet is posting on the boards.
It os time for this nation to put the onus back on individual owners whether it be dogs, guns, cars etc. Owners of any tool have the responsibility to make sure that tool is utilized properly and is secure when not in their possession.
Comment by Gish Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 7:04 am
I think this calls for vets to speak out. Doesn’t being a purebred mean you carry the traits of your breed? Are pit bulls more likely to be aggressive than say labs, regardless of the owner? Where are the vets?
Comment by Shallow Pharnyx Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 7:06 am
If the majority of DUI-related accidents were in red SUVs, don’t you think there would be discussion of car-specific legislation.
And yet, it’s not the car that is the real problem; it’s the driver. But the only way to identify the people who cause dangerous events to happen are by the tools they use.
If you don’t want to be swept up in the solution society is forced to adopt, don’t drive a red SUV.
Comment by RBD Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 8:03 am
In the court of public opinion, correlation *is* causality.
Especially if it is a highly emotional debate.
Comment by Leroy Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 8:12 am
To think that banning a certain breed of dog will stop dog violence is foolish. Dog owners who want dangerous dogs will find, or train, other breeds equally capable of causing harm. The biggest problem I see is that while criminal charges might punish reckless owners, they provide no reparations for the victims of dog attacks. Legislated fines are arbitrarily set, and if too low may be an ineffective sufficient deterrent, or if too high may punish the owner excessively.
Why not let vicitms of dog attacks sue the owners? We allow lawsuits when one person harms another (intent or negligence) and attackers can be prosecuted under both criminal and common law. As a dog owner, I take the position that dog owners have a duty to exercise care when they have their dogs in public areas. If that duty is breached and a dog attacks, the victim should be able to sue the dog owner - regardless of the breed - and for more than just simple damages.
Simply put, regulation is a blunt tool that requires a significant amount of resources to enforce. Why not provide a financial incentive for owners to keep their dog under control at all times? A stiff financial penalty will send the greatest message to irresponsible dog owners - regardless of the breed.
Comment by Slick Willy Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 8:25 am
Dogs don’t kill people.
People kill people.
Comment by Chicagograssroots Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 8:49 am
Slick,
It is known as the “Animal Control Act” and it is already law.
It is pretty meaningless though without insurance requirements.
As the owner of a gentle large dog, I favor mandatory insurance laws for dogs. Own a dog? Carry a $1 million policy. That needs to apply to all dogs though. The little dogs tend to be vicious untrained little rats and they tend to do the most biting.
Although I personally don’t trust pit bulls and do everything I can to keep my distance from them, as a pratical matter breed-specific legislation will not work.
Outlaw pits? Bull mastiffs will become the attack dog of choice and they are even bigger and meaner. Or Rots or Dobermans (two breeds with bad reps that inproper hands and gentle and kind dogs).
Outlawing a breed is a short term solution that is bound to create more problems than it solves. We already have lines of badly bred pits. Outlawing them will cause the bad guys to create lines of badly bred mastiffs. Not much of a solution.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 9:02 am
Correction:
The line should read:
Or Rots or Dobermans (two breeds with bad reps that in proper hands are gentle and kind dogs).
People should try and see Rots, Dobermans or Germ. Sheps when they are working. The communication and control between dog and handler is just a wonder. Or see a Schutzhund training session. Two humans could not work better as a team.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 9:05 am
Ok.. so I wrote an 18 page paper on breed-specific legislation, so I’m going to proclaim myself the expert of this thread (just because I can). Comparing Red SUV’s to Pit Bulls or Rottweillers is a specious argument; Red SUV’s cannot act independently of their owners, while dogs can certainly act independently of their owners. Even the most well intentioned dog owner cannot control their dog 24/7, and specific dog breeds, such as pit bulls, have been bred to fight for hundreds of years — scientific evidence points to the fact that endorphins are released in the brains of pit bulls during a fight, and the more you fight off a pit bull, the more “happy” endorphins are released into its brain. Furthermore, during an attack, pit bulls, unlike other dogs, will not cease the attack no matter what you do to it, short of shooting it. The case in McHenry County when the pit bulls attacked the two boys is a perfect example — for about 20 minutes the dogs would not back off, despite people using bats, their SUV and other means to stop the dogs — police intervention was relatively useless as well — this would not have happened with other breeds. So, just as society can say we don’t want lions or tigers as pets in a suburban or urban environment, I believe we can say the same for vicious breeds of dogs.
Comment by Just Observing Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 9:14 am
As a former NRA member, I support gun owners and responsible gun ownership. However, that doesn’t mean I support allowing everyone to buy Uzi’s.
And I’m a dog owner, but I don’t believe that pit bulls are “pets.” They are bred for their killing ability, just like Uzi’s are made for maximum killing ability.
Comment by Anon sequitur Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 9:21 am
I guess I would say that it depends where you are. If you live in a more rural area, I see no reason to restrict any dog breeds. I am against restriction of these dog breeds anyway, but I can understand the concern of urban and suburbanites when their kids get mauled. I think the blame has to go to neglegent dog owners, because we all know how these dogs act. And if they can’t control the dog, it is their fault. They should either get it under control or put it to sleep.
Comment by Lovie's Leather Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 9:24 am
I would certainly support punishing dog owners who bite people, but that seems rather rare.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 9:35 am
What about the noise polution caused by the incessant yapping of Beagles! The problem is you have people who want to be tough and turn a nice Doberman/Boxer, Rot into a vicious status symbol. These animals can do more destruction if raised by idiots, but nothing is meaner than a poodle.
Comment by Wumpus Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 9:47 am
Owners should be responsible for their dogs. Period. They bought them, trained them house them. But these owners are getting reckless. Just because their dog is nice in their house, outside they are different. Given the latest Tribune articles on the boy from Cary. he knew the dogs, the owners let him in the hsoue with the dogs, the boy thought he knew the dogs. Obviously that was irrelevant. They are dangerous dogs they just are. I am all for larger restrictions on these dogs. Because different from guns a PERSON has to PHYSICALLY pull the trigger. On a dog, the OWNER does not know how the dog will react and as a mother myself, I always have the eyes out when we are at a public park for a runaway dog, or unleashed dog and even when we walk past dogs on a leash, we walk to the side, slow down and my girls know NEVER reach out to a dog. Say what you will but no dog can be completely controlled not completely trusted.
Comment by annoyed all the time Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 10:04 am
oh and skeeter, you are talking about intelligent dog owners, people who are responsible owners, dogs who go through rigorous training… not the morons who think they are above anything or the goofs that think nothing will never happen. Too many idiots getting bad dogs and not taking responsibiity.
Comment by annoyed all the time Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 10:06 am
Genetically dogs and wolves are virtually indistinguishable, but we don’t allow people to keep wolves. It’s easy to say “it’s all about the owners” but there have been too many cases in which responsible owners were stunned when their dog committed a first, but horrific, offense. An insurance requirement is a good one, but all the insurance in the world won’t put muscle and flesh back on Nick Foley. There’s no easy answer here.
Comment by Still Anon Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 10:34 am
I own a 12 yr. old docile Dalmatian, that slipped away last month without my knowledge. She got scared and bit a small elderly poodle that was walking unleashed in front of our house. It was rather vicious.
Any dog can bite. It cannot be breed specific. Pitbull isn’t a breed anyway. It is like cock fighting. These dogs are trained to fight.
Many dogs that people describe as being a pitbull are a beagle/bulldog mix or a hound/boxer mix. What most people are opposed to are the Staffordshire Terriers that have been bred to fight.
Arrest the criminals. Don’t ban a dog that happens to look like a pitbull.
Comment by Shelbyville Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 10:35 am
“Arrest the criminals. Don’t ban a dog”
But that’s not what we do with guns. To be consistant, we should make it far more difficult & costly for people to acquire dogs that can be used to assault people.
Comment by A worried mother Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 10:50 am
Shelby - that’s the whole point. You weren’t an irresponsible owner, you certainly weren’t a criminal, but you still had a one-time unforeseen bad occurrence. Some breeds have those occurrences often enough that they are, at least statistically, foreseeable.
Comment by Still Anon Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 10:56 am
My sister from Oklahoma lived next door to two pit bulls. When my family and I went to visit we were all sitting outside having a cookout. My children were 9 and 4 and her children were 8 and 5 at the time. I was concerned with these pit bulls in the next yard, even though there was a hurricane fence between the yards. My sister assured me they had lived next door to them for years and that the dogs were friendly and never bothered her or her kids.
A few months later, I got a call from her. Her children were playing outside with light jackets on. It started warming up outside so they took their jackets off and put them over the fence. Her 8 year old daughter’s jacket bloew over into the neighbor’s yard so she went thru the gate to get it. These two “friendly” dogs attacked her and she had to cower down with her hands over her head in a fetal position. Her little brother ran in the house yelling that “Ben and Jerry are eating Aimee up”. My sister and brother, who happened to be visiting from Texas, ran outside and were astounded at what they saw. My brother had grapped a metal pipe on his way out and started beating the dogs over the head with it. Luckily. my brother is a big man and it only took a couple whacks on each dog’s head to get them to release my niece.
She was rushed to the emergency room and had over 100 stitches to her arms, hands and top of her head. The doctor said if she would not have covered herself the way she did, she probably would not have survived.
Of course, these dogs were put to sleep. The neigbors were very apologetic and said they never would have thought their dogs would have done something like this. The point being, these dogs are territorial. She went in their yard to retrieve her jacket and it was their instinct to protect their property. Yes, it was the 8 year old’s fault by going in their yard, but these were “friendly dogs”.
Most of you will say “why did your sister leave them outside with these dogs next door”? Well, their whole yard was fenced all the way around. They were playing on their swingset like they have many times before.
These dogs were not taught to be vicious by the owners - exactly the opposite.
Comment by maggiemae Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 11:13 am
Why is it when you go to the pound you see a majority of pitbull or pitbull mixed breeds?
Comment by Shallow Pharnyx Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 11:46 am
There are too many examples where responsible owners lose control of certain pure-bred and mixed-bred dogs, even though they “thought” they were friendly. There are evn more examples of irresponsible owners that breed these dogs to attack and escape prosecution because they either jail these dogs up so you can’t see their cruelty or they release them into the wild or kill them. The incidets in the Dan Ryan Woods in Chicago were the result of irrsponsible owners freeing their dogs to attack anyone.
And where is it written that we have a right to own any dog we choose? As has been stated, many animals are banned from municipalities now — everything from wild lions and tigers to pot-bellied pigs. This is no different.
And who would police the owners anyway? We don’t have enough police to police other crimes and now we have to police dog biting?
The only reasonale solution is compiling a list of breeds and banning those breeds. Borderline breeds and mixes could be allowed but only if ownership can be verified and insurance is mandatory.
Comment by Man Bites Dog Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 12:22 pm
For those who want to ban breeds:
Currently, pit bulls are the dog of choice for dog fighting, etc. Ban them, and the dog fighters will turn to Rots. Are we going to ban them then? And after that, Mastiffs? What’s next?
The solution is for laws to control the dogs and to impose consequences. Mandatory fencing. Mandatory warnings. Mandatory insurance. Don’t have a seven foot fence? Your dogs are removed. That is the solution. Singling out a breed is not the solution.
Regarding the story of the girl who went into the yard with the dog: What would happen if that girl had run into the street? If the child was not mature enough to avoid going into any yard alone, she should not have been left outside alone. Parenting takes work. Those parents failed. That easily could have been any dog. A Golden Retriever might have done exactly the same thing.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 12:42 pm
A worried mother said:
“`Arrest the criminals. Don’t ban a dog’
“But that’s not what we do with guns. To be consistant, we should make it far more difficult & costly for people to acquire dogs that can be used to assault people. ”
Good plan.
And then lets destroy the records that show ownership of fighting dogs. And we can let the breeders of vicious dogs off. Breed a dog designed for fighting? No liability there, just like with guns.
Good plan.
If you are going to try and make an analogy, CM, you’ve got to do better than that.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 12:47 pm
Just FYI - Trib online has an update “cops shoot pitbulls” the officers were arresting a man, and the owner sicced the dogs on the officers. In this case you know these owners have no insurance nor would they have anything to sue for and no ability to buy insurance. They would buy the dogs on the street if they were banned. Honestly someone give a answer?
Comment by annoyed all the time Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 1:06 pm
I think it was within the last year, a woman had the first ever face transplant in France. The dog that chewed off her face was a lab.
When I was a kid, we had a lab with the softest mouth you could ever imagine. One day she carried a water ballon for over a block without breaking.
When the dog was about 12, she went after my then 18 month old cousin. We were having a party and the dog was being pestered by the baby. The dog would get up and move and the baby would follow. Once the dog had enough, she went after the baby with a roar. The baby’s head and face were in her mouth, fat pudgy cheeks and all. Once the baby was rescued, there wasn’t a mark, red spot, bruise - just slobber. It scared the hell out of us. Needless to say the dog went into the basement for the rest of the party.
So who is to blame for the attack? The baby? Adults who weren’t paying attention? The dog? I would say that it was the adults who weren’t paying attention.
Comment by Love Hunting Dogs Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 2:49 pm
The problem is a combination of both. I’ve seen poddles that are more aggresive than rots and pitbulls becasue of the owners and how they’ve been treated by them and others. Pure and simple - abuse. But when you get a mix of abusive owners and breeds that are more aggresive and larger (the meanest Chihuahua is nothing to fear, except perhaps for a newborn), the results are disastrous. On the other hand, and I’m talking about all pets now, not just dogs, the breed is also a large part of it. What about someone who has a wolf or a mountain lion as a pet. One would surey make that illegal as I believe it already is.
Comment by Wait a second Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 2:55 pm
Breed specific legislation does not solve the real problem, which is irresponsible dog owners. There must be thousands upon thousands of pit bull type dogs in the Chicago area (including a few in my neighborhood); the large majority are well-behaved family pets who live their entire lives pretty peacefully. The cases we read about in the papers are anomalies, and are generally preventable were it not for irresponsible owners neglecting to manage their dogs’ behavior.
Someone asked earlier about what vets think. Well, the Chicago Veterinary Medical Association has spoken out on this issue and does not support breed specific legislation. Check out their website before jumping to conclusions about breed bans. The scientific evidence simply does not support the notion that pit bulls or other large breeds are innately vicious. That said, owners who neglect to train, socialize, and manage their dogs, or – even worse – train their dogs to be aggressive on purpose, should absolutely be punished and prohibited from owning any animal, even a chihuahua.
Comment by dog days Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 3:06 pm
Skeeter:
What part of they were in a all fenced in back yard that you didn’t get?????? She went thru a gate to get the jacket. The street was no where in the picture. Do you get it now????
Comment by maggiemae Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 3:20 pm
Maggiemae:
The child left its own yard and went into a yard where dogs were kept.
That is stupid and the breed doesn’t matter. A Golden Retriever is likely to attack when that happens.
Children should learn not to run out into the street and not to go into somebody else’s yard.
If the kids are too young to know now to do so, they should not be left alone.
Bad parents. Blame the parents, not the dog.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 3:29 pm
Skeeter - let the parent whose kid has never done anything unexpected throw the first doggie treat! Unless you’re childless and therefore a certified authority on parenting.
Comment by Still Anon Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 3:38 pm
That’s why I don’t even let my kids go outside … ever.
Comment by Good Parent Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 3:45 pm
Still Anon:
Sure kids do childish things. I am not suggesting the kids [or the parents] be put to sleep. I am suggesting that when a child goes into a strange dog’s yard, the dog is not the one to blame.
Moreover, one of the things about being a parent is knowing that kids do dumb things. That is why being a parent takes work. Too many parents don’t know that or just don’t care.
Those dogs — which everybody said were pretty gentle — were put to death because parents did not do what they were supposed to do.
That is a shame.
There are a lot of bad pit bulls out there, but this was not a case of bad pit bulls. This was a case of bad parents and not bad dogs.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 3:49 pm
Skeeter has the right of it folks. Assuming these dogs were also fenced in their own yard the responsibility lies with the child (and therefore the parents). It is sorry that the child did an unexpected thing but whose fault is it? Certainly not the dog owner’s.
I moved into a new house with my two dogs. I put up a fence too. My neighbor kids one day decided to simply let themselves into my yard to play with my dogs. Luckily they are smaller and do not bite (except for the older when harassed and unable to escape). The sad thing is the parents are never anywhere to be found and don’t seem to monitor there children at all. I have since had to lock my fence since my neighbors do not care to supervise their own children.
Comment by Gish Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 4:25 pm
Hold on. Now we’re blaming kids for the behavior of dogs? Let’s regain some focus here.
The main point is that no legislation or action by anyone is going to 100% prevent dog (pet) attacks. We must also concede that there will always be good dog owners and bad owners, just like there are good drivers and bad drivers.
The true variable here is that dogs (pets) are living creatures with minds of their own. They make decisions we can’t control, no matter how good or bad of an owner we are. For this reason, comparing dogs to guns or cars is a hollow arguement. We (humans) ultimately have control over how these things are used. Not so with a dog or other pet.
The fact is that dog breeds do differ, sometimes greatly. And pit bulls are as close as you can come to owning a wild animal. They were breed for the distinct purpose of fighting and for no other reason. They are as different from a golden retriever as a house cat is from a bobcat.
I’m not a big supporter of breed specific legislation, but, in order to reduce dog attacks, I think we should make an exception in the case of pit bulls.
Comment by Left Leaner Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 5:23 pm
Ban convicted felons from owning dogs over 15 lbs?
From today’s Tribune:
Cop kills attacking pit bull
A 19-year-old West Side man was charged with assault today for siccing his pit bull on Chicago police officers, who were forced to shoot and kill the dog, police said…
…The incident occurred about 12:30 p.m. at Keys’ residence, where a Harrison Area detective and two district officers had gone to take him into custody, Officer Kelly Liakopoulos said. “The detective was going to place the offender under arrest for aggravated domestic battery,” she said.
While being arrested, the man ordered his pit bull to attack the officers, Liakopoulos said….
…She said Keys told the dog, “Sic ‘em, girl,” and the dog grabbed the officer by his arm, leaving bruises and scratches. She said one of the officers shot the dog in the head as the dog attempted to go for the officer’s crotch.
I think one thing we ought to consider is dramatically elevating laws against animal abuse and neglect. There is a strong correlation between animal abuse, child abuse and domestic violence. In fact, animal abuse occurs in 88% of the homes where child abuse occurs, according to a 1997 study. Get tired of beating your kid? Beat their dog and make them watch.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 6:16 pm
Left Leaner ~~~
“Dogs are living creatures with minds of their own?”
Please. It’s a dog owner’s responsibility to train their dog and restrain it to the degree necessary. A poorly trained or abused dog is like a loaded gun, and the owner who allows it near people essentially pulled the trigger.
But a well-trained dog is a loving member of the family who would never do harm. Unlike a loaded gun, which is more likely to kill it’s owner or a member of the family than an intruder.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 6:23 pm
I understand that generally speaking pit bulls are a dangerous breed. That being said, I don’t have confidence in the judgment of lawmakers to decide that a certain breed should be banned. I say that because lawmakers tend to go overboard in the interest of equality. Would they include in a ban, my Doberman? Would I have to put her down or give her away because someone choose to train their Dobie as a fight dog? If they did my wife and I would be crushed. Dolly is like a member of our family, we understand she’s a big dog and do have a multi-million dollar umbrella liability policy, but I take responsibility for training her to be a family pet not an attack dog.
How many pit bulls that are family pets would be subject to a breed ban? Who is going to tell a responsible family pet owner that their companion needs to be put down.? The Chicago City Council? The same group of aldermen that think your to stupid to decide that fried chicken cooked in trans fat may not be good for your health?
Oh yeah, that’s who I want to decide whether or not I can keep my Dolly.
Listen to Skeeter’s suggestions, for the first time I agree with him. There are other ways to discourage irresponsible dog ownership without banning a certain breed based on a bad reputation.
Comment by taxmandan Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 8:08 pm
YDD - you are missing the point. The mere fact you have a gun in the house is putting innocent lives at risk. The government has correctly came to the conclusion it should be complicated to purchase one. Now you may have the sweetest, cuddliest, schmoopiest rotweiler in the world, but how do you *know* it is not going to go off and tear a little kid’s face off?
We don’t trust gun owners. We shouldn’t trust pit bull owners. There is too much risk to innocent people.
Comment by Johnny Risk Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 9:00 pm
Johnny Risk -
Which is it: we shouldn’t trust pit bull owners or rotweilers?
How about malamutes? Dog encyclopedia says “prone to aggression toward other dogs”
Akitas? “high prey drive. some can be aggressive”
Bullmastiff? “overly protective, wary of strangers, not good with other pets”
Doberman Pinscher? “fearless…. some can be aggressive, nervous, and fear-bite”
Giant Schnauzer: “willful, can be aggressive with strangers”
Do I have to go on? What about Great Danes, St. Bernard’s and Chow Chows?
In fact, if you want to blame “breeds”, studies show that you’re probably about as likely to be mauled by a german shepherd as a pit bull. Maybe we should just euthanize Rin-Tin-Tin.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 10:32 pm
Here’s another crazy, outside of the box, so simple it might work suggestion:
What about licensing dog breeders?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 10:34 pm
Yellow dog do your mean the people who own the dogs or the people that do the dogs
Comment by anon again Monday, Aug 21, 06 @ 11:04 pm
Yellow dog:
The government needs to make the choice on what is dangerous and what is not They do it all the time. Some classes of weapons are more controlled than others, some not at all. There are various levels of complication for being licensed to drive vehicles, depending on how big/dangerous they are.
For them to start regulating dog ownership would not be a stretch, it would be in line with already established government precedent.
But is nice to see you take a libertarian view rather than towing the party line when it comes to putting others at potential risk
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 22, 06 @ 6:45 am
The single greatest risk to children comes from their own parents whether it be intentional harm or through neglect. How come not one of you breed banners wants to discuss licensing parents?
It is really sad when so many people who, in most cases, probably do not even own a dog that has the potential to be affected. It is the same way with everything else. If you don’t own it, use it or want it then you want to ban it.
And for the record, I own a pair of beagles which while potentially a noise nuisance are not typically considered a ‘vicious’ breed.
Comment by Gish Tuesday, Aug 22, 06 @ 7:06 am
YDD,
I’ve seen those stats about Germ. Sheps.
My understanding is that 97.7% of people mauled by GSDs deserve to be bitten.
But my understanding may be biased.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Aug 22, 06 @ 8:31 am
What about those vicious Yellow Dogs? Will they be banned too?
Comment by Wumpus Tuesday, Aug 22, 06 @ 10:50 am
Yes, dogs may have minds of their own (of varying degrees, I have a Pharoah hound mix that is very smart and a Great Dane mix that is very, very dumb; and a mini-pin mix that is very, very loud but of limited intelligence). However, their behaviour is typically pretty predictable. Unlike humans, they behave in specific ways. They are, for example, territorial. No matter how much you train the animal, you will not banish that instinct from them. So a child (or anyone else) should never enter a yard that contains dogs that are not members of the child’s family. Dogs are pack animals and comfortable in a hierarchy. Good trainers know these things and try to use the dog’s instincts to teach it to have manners and to be controllable by its human owner.
I have known Staffordshire Terriers (the fancy schmancy name for Pit Bulls) that have been gentle and well behaved, so I would not support legislation banning them outright. Certainly not if there is not a grandfather clause allowing any currently existing dogs to live out their natural lives. It’s cruel to expect owners to euthanize their animals just to comply with an over-arching law.
People who train them to be vicious or to fight are the ones who ought to be punished and severely. Many times that “training” is violent and abusive in itself.
Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Aug 22, 06 @ 10:59 am
I do agree that the biggest part of the problem is bad ownership, rather than bad dogs. Be that as it may, a bad owner paired with a very small out of control dog can do little harm, but a bad owner paired with a powerful out-of-control dog can do irreparable harm and even cause death. What I have seen is that many bad owners choose particular dog breeds to prove their “virility” rather than for the love of the breed. They also tend not to concern themselves very much with community safety. Since we can’t outlaw bad dog ownership, it is much easier to outlaw dogs that have the potential to cause the most harm. Also, if you really love dogs there are other breeds to choose from. Banned dogs that are in the “general population” already should probably be there under probationary status. Suing someone after your arms and legs have been chewed off may sound satisfying, but cannot repair the damage.
Comment by NoGiftsPlease Tuesday, Aug 22, 06 @ 7:18 pm
Let’s expand your reasoning here NoGiftsPlease. The new question should be: What else should Illinoisans/Americans ban because some owners are irresponsible?
Guns obviously. Definitely large vehicles like SUVs and Full size pickups. They do cause significantly more damage than normal sized cars. I’d like to lodge my vote for swimming pools. They don’t really serve a need in society and can therefore safely be banned to prevent drowning deaths. Knives of course. There are numerous murders with those deadly objects. How about bats, hammers, pipes or any other object that can cause blunt force trauma? Cigarettes for sure. They are a worthless item and even the Feds now believe those cause harm through second-hand smoke.
Come on everybody think of some more. Let’s see how much more we can ‘reasonably’ ban becuase irresponsible owners or users can cause deaths.
Comment by Gish Wednesday, Aug 23, 06 @ 7:27 am
Yes, Gish, that’s true, but I don’t recall a swimming pool chasing me across the street and entering my back yard to attack, or lurking in the forest preserve district to attack and kill a jogger. However, there are building codes that specify how the pool must fenced off to protect the public. There are licensing procedures to make sure you know how to drive before you get in the vehicle so you don’t kill your neighbors, and there are limitations on gun ownerships — if you are a felon you can’t legally own the gun and could be arrested if you do. Handguns are banned in Chicago. Cigarettes have been banned in most places where the public can be impacted. You see, we do believe in protecting the public from dangerous items, and dangerous dogs are no different. We don’t let children drive cars, smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. They are dangerous substances and are controlled. A dog license costs $3 and you don’t have to know anything.
Comment by NoGiftsPlease Wednesday, Aug 23, 06 @ 9:03 pm
NG:
The problem with debating people like you is that you have opinions but don’t have a clue as to the current state of the law.
We currently have all sorts of laws against dangerous dogs, starting as noted above with the Animal Control Act.
The topic of Rich’s post, if you had read it, was breed specific legislation.
Your “arguments” simply ignore the most obvious problem with anything breed specific: If we outlaw pits, bad guys will simply find another breed for the same purpose.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Aug 23, 06 @ 9:49 pm
I AM AN OWNER OF TWO PITBULLS AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THEY ARE THE BEST DOGS I HAVE EVER HAD. I ALSO, AM A DOG OWNER THAT TREATS MY PETS LIKE MY CHILD. I HAVE PET INSYURANCE EVEN. SO, HOW CAN YOU BE SO IGNORANT AND NARROW MINDED TO SAY THAT THIS BREED OF DOG (THE ENTIRE BREED) IS AGGRESSIVE. I COULD SAY THE SAME THING FOR ALL THE GANG BANGING CHILDREN IN THE WORLD. SHOULD WE ALSO, HOLD THE PARENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THERE CHILDREN DOING HARM TO OTHERS? I SEE MY PETS AS MY CHILDREN AND MAYBE IF EVERYONE LOOKED AT IT THIS WAY THERE WOULD BE LESS OF A PROBLEM. I DO WANT TO SAY THOUGH THAT I DO BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE MORE HARSH LAWS IN EFFECT FOR THE DOG OWNERS THAT BREED THERE DOG TO FIGHT AND HARM OTHERS. WE SHOULD MAKE THE POEPLE USING THESE OR ANY ANIMALS AS A WEAPON. IT IS AWFUL TO THINK THAT I SHOULD HAVE TO PUT MY DOG DOWN FOR THE EXPENSE OF THE ONES THAT DO NOT CARE FOR THERE PETS THE WAY I DO. ALL DOGS CAN BITE JUST LIKE ALL CHILDREN COULD POSSIBLY GROW UP TO BE A MENACE. MAKE THE LAWS FOR THE CRIMINALS AND NOT THE PURELY DOG LOVERS. MY TWO PITBULLS ARE VERY FRIENDLY AND I WOULD ABSOLUTELY TRUST THEM MORE THAN ALOT OF THE CHILDREN IN MY AREA. DON’T PUNISH THE DOGS OR GOOD OWNERS FOR THE AWFUL PEOPLE OUT THERE.
Comment by ANNOYED Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 9:01 am