State proposal to allow dangerous-dog ban stirs debate

DryCreek

New Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
428
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
The Great White North
#1
LINKY

State proposal to allow dangerous-dog ban stirs debate

A BILL TO BAN DANGEROUS BREEDS IS GOING THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE, BUT EXPERTS DISAGREE ON ITS NECESSITY

By ROBERTO SANTIAGO
[email protected]


A new bill making its way through the Legislature that would allow cities to ban any breed of dog they deem dangerous to their communities has two of the nation's largest animal rights groups taking opposite sides.

The bill, sponsored by Perry Thurston, D-Plantation, would give cities the right to ban breeds responsible for a large number of attacks, just as pit bulls have been banned in Miami-Dade for the past 20 years.

HB 101 would amend the state's existing ''Damage by Dogs'' statute, which limits municipalities from banning specific breeds, but holds owners liable for injuries and damage caused by their dogs.

''My primary concern is for the safety of other people and their pets, who have to deal with dangerous dogs on the streets, in dog parks, and even outside of their own homes,'' Thurston said.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals supports the bill, which if approved by the Legislature, could go into effect July 1.

Stephanie Bell, senior cruelty caseworker for PETA, said the bill would help keep breeds of dogs out of the hands of dog owners who deliberately raise their dog to be vicious for home defense or blood sports.

But The Humane Society of the United States, the Florida Animal Control Association and the American Veterinary Association say that an individual dog's behavior -- not the breed -- is the real issue to tackle.

''You know what the problem is? We have effective dangerous dog laws on the books that are not being enforced -- that is the real problem,'' said Jennifer Hobgood, Florida state director for The Humane Society of the United States.

Hobgood said banning breeds does not work and she points to Miami-Dade County as an example.

''All banning does is create a great deal of suffering among responsible dog owners who have to give up their well-behaved pets,'' Hobgood said.

Adam Goldfarb, issue specialist for The Humane Society of the United States, said that although Miami-Dade has a ban, the county cannot provide statistical evidence that there are fewer pit bull bites as a result.

Counties in South Florida have only recently started to keep track of dog attacks. Dr. Sara Pizano, director of Miami-Dade Animal Services, said it's not known whether the county's 20-year pit bull ban has been successful because the department has been compiling bite statistics only since 2005.

In Broward, 616 dog bites were reported to county animal control in 2007. In Miami-Dade, that number was 992. Terrier mixes are the No. 1 dangerous dog, and pit bulls (which include the American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, and the Staffordshire terrier) were the top dangerous dog in Broward.

Thurston believes the bill has a good chance of passing. And even if it is defeated, he believes the dialogue generated will result in a some middle-ground solution.

''In situations where targeting the individual owner is not enough to ensure public safety, individual cities should have the right to target certain problem breeds,'' said Thurston, who says a ban should be a last resort after leash and muzzling laws, fines, and even arrests, have proved futile.

Adam Goldberg, who was attacked and bitten by a Labrador retriever last September, said more needs to be done to enforce laws against dangerous dogs and the owners who can't control them.

The Labrador attacked Goldberg's leg, turning it into a bloody mess that became infected.

It took Goldberg seven weeks to walk without feeling any pain.

What's worse, weeks later, one of his girlfriend's two bichons required 10 stitches after it was mauled by a bull terrier.

''There are some breeds of dogs that are inherently dangerous -- bred for hunting, security, and illegal fighting -- that are owned by people who cannot control and socialize them,'' said Goldberg, of Hollywood.

Goldberg contacted police and animal services after the dog attacks, and said both agencies did nothing beyond issuing verbal warnings to the owners.

''If there are no serious penalties -- heavy fines, jail time, there won't be any change,'' said Robin Frydman, Goldberg's girlfriend.

But a number of animal rights organizations, which oppose the bill, say the bill skirts the real issue: making irresponsible dog owners accountable for their actions.

''Banning a breed does nothing to solve dangerous-dog problems. All it does is target well-behaved dogs owned by good dog owners -- who lose their pets due to this kind of legislation,'' said Dr. Welch Agnew, president of the Florida Animal Control Association, the statewide organization that deals with dangerous dogs.

He added that enforcing such a ban would be ineffective and would take away from more important resources, such as neutering and medical care for animals.

It would also require the county to add another expense: DNA testing to prove that a targeted dog is indeed that banned breed. Agnew, a veterinarian, said breed cannot be determined by appearance alone.

Pizano said that if Thurston's bill passed, conceiveably terriers, Labradors, or shepherd mixes could be banned if Miami-Dade County approved such a measure.

Capt. Dave Walesky, field operations manager, Palm Beach County Animal Care and Control, said shepherd mix, Lab mix, and chow mix breeds are the No. 1 dangerous dogs in Palm Beach.

His department is compiling 2007 statistics.

''Pit bulls are not a problem here, and most of their attacks are against another dog. They only bite humans who are trying to defend their dog,'' said Walesky, who opposes the bill.

Weston resident Linda Blair knows firsthand about such dangers.

Last December, Beauty, her beloved greyhound, was attacked and nearly killed by a pit bull when she took Beauty to Barkham at Markham dog park in Sunrise.

As a dog owner, Blair is undecided when it comes to supporting Thurston's bill, but agrees something has to be done to protect the public and other pets from dangerous dogs.

''I am not a big believer in banning, but in this case, I don't know,'' Blair said.

Edna Elijah, president of the Lauderdale Manors Homeowners Association, who has worked with Thurston in promoting the bill, said there would not be a dangerous dog problem if people were simply responsible.

''Things are getting worse. Something has to be done -- and now. What are we going to do? Wait till a child is killed by a dog? Is that what it is going to take?'' she said.

Miami Herald staff writer Laura Figueroa, in Tallahassee, contributed to this report.
 

Zoom

Twin 2.0
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
40,739
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
41
Location
Denver, CO
#2
Why not just go ahead and ban dogs all together? That's what this bill is essentially going for and seeing as how PETA is for it, I'm sure that's the Final Solution, er, I mean Goal.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
431
Likes
0
Points
0
#3
I say lets introduce legislation to ban idiots...we can start with the one who wrote that piece of tripe.
 

corgipower

Tweleve Enthusiest
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
8,233
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
here
#4
WHOA!!!​
Wait just a sec here!!!​

I'm confused. OK, I admit. I took a nap. I blinked. I must have missed something. Maybe the world really is ending.

Since when is HSUS opposed to breed banning??? Since when di HSUS and PETA disagree on something like this???

I, for one, refuse to be fooled by this new, feel-good sentiment of an HSUS rep.
:yikes:

But The Humane Society of the United States, the Florida Animal Control Association and the American Veterinary Association say that an individual dog's behavior -- not the breed -- is the real issue to tackle.

''You know what the problem is? We have effective dangerous dog laws on the books that are not being enforced -- that is the real problem,'' said Jennifer Hobgood, Florida state director for The Humane Society of the United States.

Hobgood said banning breeds does not work and she points to Miami-Dade County as an example.

''All banning does is create a great deal of suffering among responsible dog owners who have to give up their well-behaved pets,'' Hobgood said.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
2,365
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
High Ridge, MO
#5
One of those guys favors bans with a grandfather clause -- I think PeTA. HSUS favors restrictions, but not bans. Or maybe not. Who knows. Its all a convoluted clusterf*** anyway. Drives me to drinking sometimes. Anybody want to join me in a toast to stupidity and how it rules our lives?
 

corgipower

Tweleve Enthusiest
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
8,233
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
here
#6
Baha, I think we should get those idiots at PETA and HSUS drunk and then pass laws that ban those organizations!
 

bubbatd

Moderator
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
64,812
Likes
1
Points
0
Age
91
#7
More people have dogs rather than children today ........and each breed is different . They should go by cases not breeds !!! I'm sure everyone here has a lovable dog and is not a threat so therefore shouldn't be threatened !!!
 

DryCreek

New Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
428
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
The Great White North
#8
I forgot to mention that there is a poll/vote on the link!

WEB VOTE

Should cities be allowed to ban certain dog breeds?

Yes.
Some breeds and inherently more dangerous than others and cities should have the right to ban them. 51
13%

No.
It's unfair and won't stop the problem. 328
87%

Total Votes: 379

Your vote has been counted, thank you for voting.
 

corgi_love

Active Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
1,254
Likes
0
Points
36
#9
*huge sigh* That just makes me ill. So extremely ill. And worried that one day the dogs I'd like to own one day get banned from where I live. I'd probably move. In any event, I voted.. I hope it makes some sort of difference, though I doubt it will. *sighsighsigh*
 

chanda

New Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Messages
1,980
Likes
0
Points
0
#10
rather than banning dog breeds... why not properly impose the existing laws we have now..
 

ACooper

Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
27,772
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
IN
#11
UGH!

And let me say can you IMAGINE this?
Pizano said that if Thurston's bill passed, conceiveably terriers, Labradors, or shepherd mixes could be banned if Miami-Dade County approved such a measure.
I would say that THOSE dogs and mixes there of are about 80% of dog population of ANY given town!

My head hurts even trying to think how this would even be enforced or made to work :rolleyes:
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
87
Likes
0
Points
0
#12
Baha, I think we should get those idiots at PETA and HSUS drunk and then pass laws that ban those organizations!
Sorry, booz can't happen without some miserable human causing physical harm and suffering to yeast cells in the process.

The amount of this anti-dog legislation is unbelievable!

Debbie
 

noludoru

Bored Now.
Joined
Dec 22, 2006
Messages
17,830
Likes
8
Points
38
Location
Denver, CO
#13
WHOA!!!​
Wait just a sec here!!!​

I'm confused. OK, I admit. I took a nap. I blinked. I must have missed something. Maybe the world really is ending.

Since when is HSUS opposed to breed banning??? Since when di HSUS and PETA disagree on something like this???

I, for one, refuse to be fooled by this new, feel-good sentiment of an HSUS rep.
:yikes:
Thank you. That's the only thing that truly freaked me out about this article.. an animal RIGHT group NOT in favor of outlawing dogs? Hahahahaaaa must be a dream. I think my next dream will be of PeTA and/or H$U$ using their money towards useful things, like, I dunno, helping animals.

Pizano said that if Thurston's bill passed, conceiveably terriers, Labradors, or shepherd mixes could be banned if Miami-Dade County approved such a measure.
Um? Seems to me THEY ALREADY HAVE BANNED TERRIERS in Miami-Dade county.
 

ACooper

Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
27,772
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
IN
#14
Um? Seems to me THEY ALREADY HAVE BANNED TERRIERS in Miami-Dade county.
Oh but nolu, terriers encompass TONS of dogs, not just APBT that I believe are the ones banned there. Think of the Norwich or the Parsons (Jack Russel) or the Scottish, the Staffordshire, the Fox, the Yorkshire or the Rat, or the..........well really the list goes on and on. Then consider all the mixes of said dogs :rolleyes:

THEN look at the Labs and Shepherd mixes...........ok now, how ya gonna do that one? MOST 'mutts' have lab or shepherd mixed in somewhere along the lines, or they can SAY they do when it suits them the same way the do it when it's supposedly a pitbull!

This is one giant step in banning all dogs............and that is all it is.
 

Lilavati

Arbitrary and Capricious
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
7,644
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
47
Location
Alexandria, VA
#15
rather than banning dog breeds... why not properly impose the existing laws we have now..
Because that would require thought, judgment and effort, all things that the government doesn't want to expend, let alone permit to law enforcement. I mean, if you let people use their judgment, they might be wrong, right? So just ban everything, and then no one can make a mistake . . . of course, no one will have dogs, but our children will be safe . . . . sigh.
 

noludoru

Bored Now.
Joined
Dec 22, 2006
Messages
17,830
Likes
8
Points
38
Location
Denver, CO
#16
Oh but nolu, terriers encompass TONS of dogs, not just APBT that I believe are the ones banned there. Think of the Norwich or the Parsons (Jack Russel) or the Scottish, the Staffordshire, the Fox, the Yorkshire or the Rat, or the..........well really the list goes on and on. Then consider all the mixes of said dogs :rolleyes:

THEN look at the Labs and Shepherd mixes...........ok now, how ya gonna do that one? MOST 'mutts' have lab or shepherd mixed in somewhere along the lines, or they can SAY they do when it suits them the same way the do it when it's supposedly a pitbull!

This is one giant step in banning all dogs............and that is all it is.
I suppose I should clarify and say that I am aware they have not banned all terriers. The way I read the quote that I responded to was that Pizano was completely ignorant that Miami-Dade already had banned a terrier breed and were talking about something that COULD happen, because in their minds banning terriers hasn't happened yet.

I wasn't speaking about all terriers, just some terriers, because I wasn't aware that's what the quote was referring to.

ETA: I'm not sure I'm making sense here. In banning APBTs, a terrier breed has been banned; ergo, terriers have been banned. Not all of them, just the terriers that happen to be a part of that breed. Does that make more sense?
 

Miakoda

New Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
7,666
Likes
0
Points
0
#17
More people have dogs rather than children today ........and each breed is different . They should go by cases not breeds !!! I'm sure everyone here has a lovable dog and is not a threat so therefore shouldn't be threatened !!!
Another thing I'm always curious about is why cats are immune. Heck, cats kill birds and rodents on a daily basis. I've treated almost as many cats from cat fights (mostly tomcats of course) as I have dogs from dog fights. How come cats can fight all day long and kill resident wildlife and other domestic pets (hamsters, gerbils, birds, etc.) and be considered cute, cuddly creatures while if a dog does it, it's a vicious creature that needs to be destroyed asap?

I'm sick of this double-standard.

But most of all, I'm sick of AR people who have nothing better to do than ruin the lives of innocent people and animals.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top