5 year old girl killed by Pit Bull
- Thread starter suzanne118
- Start date
- Status
If there is a spay/neuter law and only titled dogs are exempt, which is sure ok with me, doesn't it take time for a dog to get all these titles? In which case, if there is a spay/neuter law, I am assuming there would be a deadline for the surgery, which would very likely come before the dog had a chance to get titled, wouldn't it?
Go back and check the post that aussie red made, it says "spay/neuter laws, and breeders license required for breeding"
Which means you would need to pass guidelines, prove your animals are health tested and sound before you would be trusted with a breeders license.............titles either way were never mentioned. A titled dog doesn't have to mean a healthy dog, but they usually are because they are well cared for and tested before breeding, and normally come from parents of the same. Whether its sporting or show.
Which means you would need to pass guidelines, prove your animals are health tested and sound before you would be trusted with a breeders license.............titles either way were never mentioned. A titled dog doesn't have to mean a healthy dog, but they usually are because they are well cared for and tested before breeding, and normally come from parents of the same. Whether its sporting or show.
Last edited:
And before anyone jumps me.................that post DOES NOT MEAN people who do not show or do sports do not care well for their pets! But most general pet owners do not have a host of genetic testing done on their pet.
I do not show or do sports either and my dogs are very loved and cared for, but I couldn't tell you what genetic defects they are carrying to pass on to puppies.
I do not show or do sports either and my dogs are very loved and cared for, but I couldn't tell you what genetic defects they are carrying to pass on to puppies.
A bit of an update on the situation here in Ontario...
As feared now that BSL has sucessfully slithered it's way into our legislative system, some mp's are pushing for German Shepherds, Rotti's, Dobermans to be banned and one mp in piticular is pushing for a complete muzzeling law for ALL dogs of ALL breeds while out in public
. I guess I was right to trust my instincts and start muzzel training Duke early as it seems were about to be hit with another wave of bull sh*t.
A new effort has popped up( www.stoptheban.ca) to try and counter and have the ban removed but will have to see. In the mean time I'm preparing to talk directly to media sources directly if this is proposes and many owners are preparing to stage more protests outside of queens park ( In downtown Toronto where such descions are made)
Kayla
As feared now that BSL has sucessfully slithered it's way into our legislative system, some mp's are pushing for German Shepherds, Rotti's, Dobermans to be banned and one mp in piticular is pushing for a complete muzzeling law for ALL dogs of ALL breeds while out in public
. I guess I was right to trust my instincts and start muzzel training Duke early as it seems were about to be hit with another wave of bull sh*t.A new effort has popped up( www.stoptheban.ca) to try and counter and have the ban removed but will have to see. In the mean time I'm preparing to talk directly to media sources directly if this is proposes and many owners are preparing to stage more protests outside of queens park ( In downtown Toronto where such descions are made)
Kayla
I also heard a story a little while back about a woman who was trying to get her Neopolitan Mastiff kennel registered with the town/county that she lived in, and they refused her registration due to the fact that these dogs "resembled pitbulls or where pitbull type dogs" (I'm sorry I can't site the source because I can't remember where it was from). This sort of thing is crazy, and see what BSL leads to?! How in the world you could mistake a neo for a pitt is beyond me. And therein lies the problem with mistaken identity in attacks as well. If neos can be labled as pitt type, well you can imagine what the media and goverment do when a pitt type dogs attacks, regardless if it is mix breed, or has no pitt in its genetics at all. I have seen lab x's that look pittie, shepherd crosses, even border collie and jack crosses that resemble pitbulls. 9 times out of 10 (and there are statistics out there) a dog is labled a pit in a bite or attack because thats what gets the best media covereage, even if they aren't even related to pitts in any way.
BSL is just a bandaid effort to reduce dog bites/attacks, and in the long run will cause a waterfall effect on other breeds, essetially causing a mass number of dogs to be banned in the future. If you ban one breed, whos to say that the next one with the highest number of bites/attacks/or aggressive beahviour will not be next. Whats going to happen next - perhaps, "this dog looks like it could be aggressive, lets ban it too, just in case". I've owned a dog on the list - a doberman- a breed that the public, well to put it bluntly, is afraid of (I had people move to the other side of the street when I walked my dobe, my fiance had a mother freak out because her child asked him if she could pet our dobe). This is silly. These dogs are by far some of the friendliest canines that I have ever met. I have yet to meet a human aggressive Dobe (and BTW, dog aggression does not equal human aggression - not in the least).
I have no problem with pitts, I would never own one, just because of the hype and bans in place, but I have no issues with the breed. I think the breed has an extremely bad rap due to bad owners and uneducated politians and media portraying this breed wrongly. There are many pitts in my neighbourhood, owned by responsible people who never let them off leash and have control of them in public places - as all dog owners should, regardless of breed.
I feel for the poor little girl who was killed, and the dog got what it desrved, but did the people? Probably not. And I would not hesitate to say that the "extras" found in the home were probably some sort of illegal material. THese are the type of people that give this breed a bad name. I guarantee you if this type preferred dobes, rotties or shepherds, you would have see them banned first. However, it seems they prefer pitts, and have exploited, abused, neglected and hurt the breed as a whole.
I do think, regardless of the situation, that a dog who mauls, and kills has some sort of defect. There is a syndrome known as "rage syndrome" that has been associated with the spaniel breeds, but can happen in a number of dogs. I believe it is rather rare, but this could have been the case in this situataion. It is a mental/neural issue, that comes on suddenly, and can be attributed to seizures. But no one really knows in this case.
I don;t think a dog who bites should be put down with out fully investigating the situation, but I do believe that a dog who mauls or kills should be put down.
And just for reference, pitbulls are not the only dog aggressive breed out there. There are many many dog aggressive (obviously depending upon the individual and situation) out there. Terriers are amoungst the highest dog on dog aggression breeds. And they can be amoungst the most people loving dogs. And trust me, some of these terriers (and I will not count rat terriers because they were bred for less aggressive tendancies, espcially with their makeup being paritally site hound) can take dog aggression to the levels of pits and beyond. Even some of the working dogs are known for their dog on dog aggreession, especially between intact males. However, with proper upbringing, socialization and training, these tendencies can be reduced, or disappear altogether. It is not impossible to have a dog loving pitbull or other known dog aggressive breed, infact it is not unusual with all the proper precautions taken. Too many people own dogs with little regard to training, no knowledge of behaviour and expect dogs "to know" what they are suppose to do in all situations. Dog ownership does not work like that, regardless of breed, and owners need to take responsility for things like training, socialization, health care and over all well being of their pets.
I hope all of what I have said makes sense.
OK, let me play more of the devil's advocate, if for no other reason than to provoke thought in all details. It is in details that laws sink or swim. That is why I am doing this. So please don't get annoyed as these are questions that should be addressed to lawmakers. If you want me to stop, please tell me, but believe it or not, having served as a legislator and as a serious dog lover, I want to see you succeed. My own community is on the cusp of deciding on BSL, so what you give me helps me to add some influence in some small way. Ok here goes:
In all states, pets are legally considered personal property, not living things or members of a family. I would think it would be hard constitutionally to tell people whether or not they can breed them anymore than we can tell a person which TV shows they can tune their personal TV to. We might get away with charging extra licensing fees for unneutered pets, that's done in my state anyways. I really don't see how it has helped quell backyard breeders in the least though.
Many people don't even bother licensing their dogs even though it's not that expensive, till the dogs get loose and are picked up--they take the risk for some odd reason. Not all of them are breeding, but it's pretty easy to assume some are--and some are also keeping their dogs unneutered/unspayed, which can and does lead to accidental litters.
The thing is: Most unlicensed dogs are never picked up by dog control. Where I am, this is how the dog law works: It is a local law and most dog laws are local, not state laws (beyond the state part of licensing fees): Communities generally set the pet rules--at least so far that is how it is in America. So, in my community, if a dog is picked up by dog control and there's a tag with the dog's ID on it, the owner will be called and may reclaim the dog and pay penalties and kennel fees. If the dogs has no rabies shot, there are more costs as they have to quarantine the dog. There are hefty fines for this. If the dog is ID'd and has bitten someone and there is no rabies shot proof, the dog is very likely going to be euthanized and tested for rabies. If the owners don't claim the dog and the dog is ID'd, the owner is cited for the cost of days in kennel and euthanizing the dog, and any other costs associated with the dog, eg quarintine without rabies shot, etc. If nobody calls to ask after the dog and there is no ID, the dog is euthanized and often tested for rabies.
It's all kind of like trying to control who has guns. You can register your gun by law and you need a license to own one in most places. Your gun serial number is listed on the license here, but for the most part, the underbelly of the world doesn't bother getting gun licenses or offering up serial numbers. The same goes for backyard breeders under stricter laws. The really serious backyard breeders don't generally live near other people, are more apt to be on private farms away from vision.
In all states, pets are legally considered personal property, not living things or members of a family. I would think it would be hard constitutionally to tell people whether or not they can breed them anymore than we can tell a person which TV shows they can tune their personal TV to. We might get away with charging extra licensing fees for unneutered pets, that's done in my state anyways. I really don't see how it has helped quell backyard breeders in the least though.
Many people don't even bother licensing their dogs even though it's not that expensive, till the dogs get loose and are picked up--they take the risk for some odd reason. Not all of them are breeding, but it's pretty easy to assume some are--and some are also keeping their dogs unneutered/unspayed, which can and does lead to accidental litters.
The thing is: Most unlicensed dogs are never picked up by dog control. Where I am, this is how the dog law works: It is a local law and most dog laws are local, not state laws (beyond the state part of licensing fees): Communities generally set the pet rules--at least so far that is how it is in America. So, in my community, if a dog is picked up by dog control and there's a tag with the dog's ID on it, the owner will be called and may reclaim the dog and pay penalties and kennel fees. If the dogs has no rabies shot, there are more costs as they have to quarantine the dog. There are hefty fines for this. If the dog is ID'd and has bitten someone and there is no rabies shot proof, the dog is very likely going to be euthanized and tested for rabies. If the owners don't claim the dog and the dog is ID'd, the owner is cited for the cost of days in kennel and euthanizing the dog, and any other costs associated with the dog, eg quarintine without rabies shot, etc. If nobody calls to ask after the dog and there is no ID, the dog is euthanized and often tested for rabies.
It's all kind of like trying to control who has guns. You can register your gun by law and you need a license to own one in most places. Your gun serial number is listed on the license here, but for the most part, the underbelly of the world doesn't bother getting gun licenses or offering up serial numbers. The same goes for backyard breeders under stricter laws. The really serious backyard breeders don't generally live near other people, are more apt to be on private farms away from vision.
Geeze, I feel like I'm being cross examined here for hanging someone by their neck. So I will do the work.
I posted this:
...after reading this...
..to which someone kindly responded to clarify by posting this:
...which still begs the original question. Anybody can show a healthy dog, and who is going to decide a dog's potential subjectively as to "qood quality"?. What does "good quality" mean in the objective? Surely no bona fide breeder sells "bad quality dogs". So you can see, that a titled dog starts out untitled, so that is why I asked my question. It was juuuuuuuuuuusssssst a question!!!Nobody died! Now can I get paroled?
Edit with a PS
We are talking about writing laws here right? In our counter-plan, *Somebody* makes a *Subjective* call that will be used by Law to determine who is exempt and who isn't. I am sure you know of plenty of dogs who had show "potential" that just didn't work out in the ring. But gosh they might make good breeding stock for some reason or another. So are they exempt? Now, another dog may not have the right conformation, some little detail. In the show ring, Collies with blazes aren't that cool these days, for example. So now the dog is not exempt but maybe the owner wants to try for some other types of titles, there's a zillion of them as we know. So we now have a dog the owner says he wants to get other types of titles for. Wants to compete in obedience, or rally or whatever. At this moment this dog is untitled. So is the dog exempt or not? And what if the owner never pursues any titles? How long does the dog remain exempt? And if so, exactly WHO decides this? Because if this isn't clear and objectively stated, you got the fight of your life on your hands getting such a law passed.
I posted this:
...after reading this...
..to which someone kindly responded to clarify by posting this:
...which still begs the original question. Anybody can show a healthy dog, and who is going to decide a dog's potential subjectively as to "qood quality"?. What does "good quality" mean in the objective? Surely no bona fide breeder sells "bad quality dogs". So you can see, that a titled dog starts out untitled, so that is why I asked my question. It was juuuuuuuuuuusssssst a question!!!Nobody died! Now can I get paroled?
Edit with a PS
We are talking about writing laws here right? In our counter-plan, *Somebody* makes a *Subjective* call that will be used by Law to determine who is exempt and who isn't. I am sure you know of plenty of dogs who had show "potential" that just didn't work out in the ring. But gosh they might make good breeding stock for some reason or another. So are they exempt? Now, another dog may not have the right conformation, some little detail. In the show ring, Collies with blazes aren't that cool these days, for example. So now the dog is not exempt but maybe the owner wants to try for some other types of titles, there's a zillion of them as we know. So we now have a dog the owner says he wants to get other types of titles for. Wants to compete in obedience, or rally or whatever. At this moment this dog is untitled. So is the dog exempt or not? And what if the owner never pursues any titles? How long does the dog remain exempt? And if so, exactly WHO decides this? Because if this isn't clear and objectively stated, you got the fight of your life on your hands getting such a law passed.
Last edited:
For everyone who asked me about the rotti ban which may happen here in Ontario please see my thread here as I don't want to get too offtopic here.
http://www.chazhound.com/forums/showthread.php?p=574186#post574186
Kayla
http://www.chazhound.com/forums/showthread.php?p=574186#post574186
Kayla
hummmm
Ok, for my last post to this thread I would like to say this.... I will defend the Pit Bull till the day I die among any people or forum, I believe in owner responsibility 100%. And I believe the people whom are for BSL are the knowledgeless ones... when it comes to canine behavior and genetics. It's all about Power of Words and the media thrives on it.
Just because of all this BS with the "Pit Bull", one of my near future projects will be to prove "his" respect in my town. I'll foot the bill 100%. Spudzy is 15 years old ... EVERYONE in my town knows him. When his day comes to see rainbow bridge... you can bet there will be a "party" for the towns Pit Bulls, owners and anyone driving by the Park that day.
... guess I'll go read the Rottie thread. Although I'm not impressed with this breed and their logic. :yikes:
Ok, for my last post to this thread I would like to say this.... I will defend the Pit Bull till the day I die among any people or forum, I believe in owner responsibility 100%. And I believe the people whom are for BSL are the knowledgeless ones... when it comes to canine behavior and genetics. It's all about Power of Words and the media thrives on it.
Just because of all this BS with the "Pit Bull", one of my near future projects will be to prove "his" respect in my town. I'll foot the bill 100%. Spudzy is 15 years old ... EVERYONE in my town knows him. When his day comes to see rainbow bridge... you can bet there will be a "party" for the towns Pit Bulls, owners and anyone driving by the Park that day.
... guess I'll go read the Rottie thread. Although I'm not impressed with this breed and their logic. :yikes:
Agreed, the only way you are going to have of catching these "breeders" are when they place posters, ads in the paper, or other venues to try and sell their dogs. And then good samaritans <sp> are going to need to turn them in to be checked out. But how in the world do they enforce BSL either?? They don't is the answer to that, unless there is an incident that forces them to 'gather up' all the known 'types' in a hurry, which is what is happening in England right now.
And as to the "titled" dogs once more..............MOST people who show their dogs do not OWN them outright, they are CO-OWNED by the breeder until they are titled and/or breed and give a puppy back to the original owner, which is normally in the contract of a good breeder. So, since the name of the original breeder is going to be on the ownership record until the dog is bred, and said breeder must obvioulsy have a breeders license, this would not even be a question in most cases. At which time the dog becomes solely yours, you would need to A) get a breeders license or B) spay or neuter.
I am not sure how it goes for sporting dogs, but they do not need to be "intact" to be compete anyway, so it would be up to the owner if he/she wanted to go for a breeders license or not.
And as to the "titled" dogs once more..............MOST people who show their dogs do not OWN them outright, they are CO-OWNED by the breeder until they are titled and/or breed and give a puppy back to the original owner, which is normally in the contract of a good breeder. So, since the name of the original breeder is going to be on the ownership record until the dog is bred, and said breeder must obvioulsy have a breeders license, this would not even be a question in most cases. At which time the dog becomes solely yours, you would need to A) get a breeders license or B) spay or neuter.
I am not sure how it goes for sporting dogs, but they do not need to be "intact" to be compete anyway, so it would be up to the owner if he/she wanted to go for a breeders license or not.
This was posted on a forum I look at sometimes, in response to this attack. These people made this organization to scrap the Dangerous Dog Act in the UK, and I wish them all the luck in the world.
http://www.bull-breed-defenders.org.uk/Index.html
http://www.bull-breed-defenders.org.uk/Index.html
One last thing I want to add to this thread before I blow out as well.
I searched a very simple search, I typed in "BSL INDIANA" and came back with different petitions to stop this, some was for............whatever your view point it is easy enough to find the petition/way to help. If you are truly interested this is something you can do in seconds. Every name will count, and there are people fighting. If you are a Hoosier against BSL, I have already found one petition to sign, I am sure there are many more out there.
Here is the link for Indiana residents AGAINST BSL, it also gives some stats on recent temperament tests!
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/897496119?ltl=1168486214
I searched a very simple search, I typed in "BSL INDIANA" and came back with different petitions to stop this, some was for............whatever your view point it is easy enough to find the petition/way to help. If you are truly interested this is something you can do in seconds. Every name will count, and there are people fighting. If you are a Hoosier against BSL, I have already found one petition to sign, I am sure there are many more out there.
Here is the link for Indiana residents AGAINST BSL, it also gives some stats on recent temperament tests!
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/897496119?ltl=1168486214
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2007
- Messages
- 99
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
that is wrong
i mean no owner should let their dog get that mean and leaving a 5 YEAR OLD GIRL home alone is just wrong i mean that is like wrong the girl dead and the dog the killer and that would have never happend if the girl wasnt home alone and if they trained their dog from the start that prombly would have never happened
so it all leans on the parents should that is SO WRONG
i mean no owner should let their dog get that mean and leaving a 5 YEAR OLD GIRL home alone is just wrong
i mean that is like wrong the girl dead and the dog the killer and that would have never happend if the girl wasnt home alone and if they trained their dog from the start that prombly would have never happenedso it all leans on the parents should that is SO WRONG
- Status