Do you think this is fair?

[casablanca1]

Originally Posted by hops

I live in an area where two pitbull maulings happend. I dont know who is putting this law in, but they are saying that if you have a pitbull and I am pretty sure any other breeds like staffordshire bull terriers, that they have to be put to sleep. I dont think that this is fair just because two dogs got loose you have to put your dog asleep. Do you all think this is fair?

Just to be persnickety - if this is a law that's been passed, it's presumably been passed because the two loose dogs mauled people/other animals, not simply because they were loose.

Also, I've never heard of a bsl case where owners were actually forced to put down dogs who weren't directly involved in an incident. Usually a community bans a breed or breeds, meaning owners of such breeds must move, rehome their dog or have the dog euthanized. The outcome may be similar if owners are unwilling or unable to leave the area or send the dog away, but it's not a direct mass seizure and killing of dogs.

[Amstaffer]

Originally Posted by casablanca1

Just to be persnickety - if this is a law that's been passed, it's presumably been passed because the two loose dogs mauled people/other animals, not simply because they were loose.

Also, I've never heard of a bsl case where owners were actually forced to put down dogs who weren't directly involved in an incident. Usually a community bans a breed or breeds, meaning owners of such breeds must move, rehome their dog or have the dog euthanized. The outcome may be similar if owners are unwilling or unable to leave the area or send the dog away, but it's not a direct mass seizure and killing of dogs.

They are forced to put down their dogs because the cannot move and can't find a new home,

See Denver, Dade County, Kansas City bans just to name a few. The Euthanization of Dogs (Pits and Pit mixes) skyrocketed in all these areas shortly after the bans went into place

If they are having problems with dog attacks, then why dont they just require dogs to be muzzled in public instead of using bsl?

[CanadianK9]

Originally Posted by rottiegirl

If they are having problems with dog attacks, then why dont they just require dogs to be muzzled in public instead of using bsl?

because that would make sense, and we all know that the goverment doesnt do things with that logic on mind lol

[casablanca1]

It's not at all logical to replace bsl with muzzle laws. All dogs aren't the problem. It's true that pits are not the only problem, but at least banning them does remove one potentially dangerous type of dog from a community. Laws that focus on owner control of dogs are weaker than ban laws, and are rarely enforced. There are leash laws, after all, and how often are they enforced?

I'm not saying that I'm pro-bsl, neccessarily, just that a muzzle law is illogical in this situation.

[Amstaffer]

Originally Posted by casablanca1

It's not at all logical to replace bsl with muzzle laws. .

Problem is it is too logical

Originally Posted by casablanca1

All dogs aren't the problem. It's true that pits are not the only problem,.

Dogs are not the problem period....its humans! You could ban Pits, Rotts, GSD and Dobes and with a few years a new dog would be the new macho dog in no time. The only ban that would truly work is a strictly enforced ban an all dogs over 15lbs. But even then you would still have baby maulings.

Originally Posted by casablanca1

but at least banning them does remove one potentially dangerous type of dog from a community.,.

It doesn't remove the threat because the true problem remains....Stupid and evil people.

Using this same logic, we should ban all red cars. Red cars are involved in more speeding cases than any other color of car and the highest percentage of auto-fatalities involve red cars. Thus we must stop the sale and owning of red cars!

Originally Posted by casablanca1

Laws that focus on owner control of dogs are weaker than ban laws, and are rarely enforced. There are leash laws, after all, and how often are they enforced?

The laws on owner control aren't weaker (written by the same people) they are not enforced as much. So the problem is enforcement of laws we already have. The problem is not the thousand and thousand of Pit Bulls who will never bite anyone in the 12+ years they grace this planet.

Originally Posted by casablanca1

I'm not saying that I'm pro-bsl, neccessarily, just that a muzzle law is illogical in this situation.

I wouldn't have thought you were pro-Bsl or anti-pit bull at all...........

[JennSLK]

can they legally do that? Isnt there like a clause in the laws sying that if they are allready there they can stay? Can some one fnid out?

[oriondw]

All I can say is, life sucks and it is never fair.

[Amstaffer]

Originally Posted by JennSLK

can they legally do that? Isnt there like a clause in the laws sying that if they are allready there they can stay? Can some one fnid out?

When they write laws they can put in a "Grandfather" clause but they don't have to. Some BSL have them and some don't.