not only can they take your home, but now..

[Blackwood]

..they can take your dog too...

Denver Dog Ban

Some quotes: "Since May, more than 380 dogs have been impounded and at least 260 destroyed — an average of more than three a day.

Dog owners are in a panic. Some are using an underground railroad of sorts, sending their pets to live elsewhere or hiding them from authorities...
...But Denver's ban applies to any dog that looks like a pit bull. The animal's actual behavior does not matter"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050720/ap_ ... er_dog_ban

dare i ask whatever happened to common sense?
how many people die each year of dog bites? in comparison:
how many people die each year of car accidents? Anyone ban cars?
How many people die each year of cigarettes? Anyone ban cigarettes?
Howmany people die each year of alcohol? Anyone ban drinking?

I wish people would stop overregulating everything and turning the state into an enforcement vehicle which starts to increasingly exhibit oppressive behavior not unlike a totalitarian regime.

Police teams breaking down on peoples homes to take away their property/animal that is guilty only by look of association rather than any factual wrong doing. What is that?

[Tyler]

Lotta silly people living in Denver.....
Thats why I dont live there.... I love my dog too much!
Okay, he's only a chihuahua (not mine, but very much the same in appearance), but hey! If they can take your dog for looking like a pitt bull, they might take your dog for looking like vermin!!!!!!!
http://www.dogchurch.org/index.shtml This is funny! Church of the Blind Chihuahua!

[gonzo914]

Having lived next door to one of those dogs for a year and dealt with its constant attempts to get at my kids over a wholly inadequate fence, I've got no problem with this. Denver pit bull owners had plenty of notice to either relocate or get rid of their dogs.

In our case, we called animal control several times and were told that unless the dog actually did get out and attack someone, there was nothing that could be done. Now mind you, this dog had made it half eway over the fence at least twice, but unless someone got hurt, animal control was unwilling to do anything. So I applaud Denver for giving its police an ordinance with some teeth in it.

As for the dog next door, it just died one day.

[MarkB]

Not just Denver, but Windsor, Ontario, Canada is doing the same thing, one of the fiercest By Laws anywhere in Canada. The owners are doing the same thing in Windsor as in Denver.

MakrB

[Blackwood]

gonzo,
First i agree with you that if someone has a dog that is very aggressive toward humans and is not properly kept and is a demonstrated danger should be dealt with. But to take that and kill all dogs of that species and rip perfectly good natured animals from their owners because they look like that species is in my opinion outrageous.

"one of those dogs" means what? that they are all the same? that they act all like that? That's simplifying and stereotyping. I know the argument "they were bred to fight" well so where all mastiff breeds; and notice the Nazis did not use pitbulls but German shepards in concentration camps. Point being is dogs act according to the way they are trained, yes you can breed some individuals according to aggressive traits, but that doesn't apply to the wider breeds of dogs considered to be pitbulls.

It's just silly at best, ignorance as the most likely, and counter to a free society at its worst.

Simple question: What % of all living American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breeds have ever bitten or killed a human being?
Find the answer and then determine if a ban/extermination of the entire species is appropriate.

[gonzo914]

First i agree with you that if someone has a dog that is very aggressive toward humans and is not properly kept and is a demonstrated danger should be dealt with.

In other words, you would prefer to wait until someone is hurt before doing something. Your right to have a pet supercedes my kids' right to be safe in their own yard.

. . . counter to a free society at its worst. . .

Find for me the constitutional guarantee of the right to own dogs.

When it comes to advocating for individual freedoms, I am usually at the front of the line. But not in this case. Individual freedom is not absolute, and when the exercise of individual freedom is potentially detrimental, or in this case, outright dangerous, to another, it is subject to control. Furthermore, it is appropriate to evaluate the relative severity of the consequences of limitign vs. not limiting personal freedom, and it should be palpably obvious that the negative consequences of someone being mauled by a pit bull far outweigh the negative consequences of taking away someone's doggie.

Bottom line -- pit bulls have caused more fatalities in the last 20 to 25 years than any other breed (and more than the next 2 highest breeds combined, according to the CDC), and if the elected representative government of a jurisdiction says to get them out of Dodge, then get them out or face the consequences. Banning pit bulls is no different than passing legislation outlawing keeping mountain lions or meth labs.

[Blackwood]

Find for me the constitutional guarantee of the right to own dogs

well find me the constitutional guarantee of the right to own cars. I guarantee you more people die of vehicular manslaughter than dog bites.

You might want to reexamine your thesis as you seem to be advocating the demise of pitbulls since they apparently ( i say apparently since statistics are wonderous thing) kill more people than other dogs. But your argument appears to be that your kids should be safe from dogs that kill kids (i don't think anyone disagrees with that statement). But then you need to be consequent and say that all dogs species that contain individual members that have killed humans need to be banned. If you are not consequent in that then you make it a game of acceptable statistics, i.e. pit bulls are killing more so they need to be banned, other dogs kill less so it's an acceptable risk or is it if you're kid is the one that got hurt?

So the question then is what is the acceptable risk?

As I tried to convey in my first post that given the apparently acceptable fatality rates in other categories that far outweigh dog bites does this then not expose the hypocrisy of it all?

The same people who want to ban pitbulls drive their potentially fatal vehicles all over the map at a clip of 25,000 fatalities in the US each year.

To use your tag line: Would you prefer to wait until someone is hurt before doing something?
Get my drift?

Shouldn't we rather focus on the individual dogs that cause harm mostly due to bad owners?

[gonzo914]

well find me the constitutional guarantee of the right to own cars.

There isn't one. Just ask the people on Catalina or Mackinac Island, who have decided they can do without them quite nicely.

So the question then is what is the acceptable risk?

Precisely, and banning pit bulls may not solve the problem completely, but it's certainly a good start. I wouldn't have a problem with going down a couple more levels. Hell, just throw in Rottweilers, and you've accounted for about half.

You're quite fond of using automobile fatalities as a parallel, but you gloss over or conveniently ignore the fact that we do regulate automobiles. There are limits on who can drive, where you can drive, how you can drive, and even what you can drive. And we tolerate them because they do save lives. Placing limits on dog ownership is no different.

Shouldn't we rather focus on the individual dogs that cause harm mostly due to bad owners?

We should do that, too, but this is reactive. It doesn't prevent attacks, and by extension, fatalities; it merely assigns blame after the fact.

And just one final comment, then I'm done with this one -- Get over it, dude. It's just a damn dog. And if the people in your town say you can't have one, you can't have one. Just like you can't have a bazooka, or play with dynamite in your yard, or drive a nitro burning monster truck to the grocery store.

--30--

[djm]

There is no comparison with cars or tobacco, or chihuahuas either, for that matter. Pit bulls have been specifically bred to be uncontrollably violent. The same thing was happening with Dobermans, but the breeders agreed to breed that behaviour out of them. This has been going on for the last ten years, and you'll notice that you haven't heard much of anything about Dobeys attacking anyone for a long time. Pit bull breeders have refused to comply with similar breeding plans. Many cities in Canada have, or will soon, put plans into effect to irradicate the breed.

Let's face it, there are too many people who buy pit bulls as weapons to make themselves feel tougher. It is too bad that all pit bulls and all owners get tarred with the same brush, but there really is no call for creating something as potentially nasty as what a pit bull in a frenzy can become.

And your rights be damned. You have no more right to endanger yourself or your neighbours with a dangerous animal than I have to start a dangerous meth lab next door "just for hobby purposes only".

djm

[Blackwood]

It's just a damn dog. And if the people in your town say you can't have one, you can't have one

wow, i guess you would handle living in a totalitarian society much better than i would...i guess if the people in your town said to burn witches that would be ok too...just because people in a town say something doesn't mean it is right...you know that or are you blindly agreeing with everything that the government deems to be?

Hell, just throw in Rottweilers

wow, a classic cattle working dog from Germany banned as well..

we do regulate automobiles

and we regulate dog ownership tags licenses, etc. but we do not ban them..

And we tolerate them because they do save lives

dogs save lives all the time, ever hear of rescue dogs? so what's your point?

Just like you can't have a bazooka, or play with dynamite in your yard, or drive a nitro burning monster truck to the grocery store.

a dog is like a bazooka or dynamite? Wow, where can i get one of these?

[Blackwood]

djm

And your rights be damned

guys don't you see where this is heading if we are so easily accept giving up rights?

Look I totally agree that there are some lowlives that have taken some pitbulls breeds and abused them. Then go after the lowlives.

Look at the official AKC breeding standards and that's what the MAJORITY of these dogs are you don't see any vicious ghetto dogs in there.

Has the banning of assault weapons prevented the availability of assault weapons?
Has the banning of drugs prevented the availability of drugs?

Please, the banning of a dog breed will not prevent lowlives from breeding nasty dogs.

It's just naiive to believe that, and in the meantime you have a witch hunt going on that's not based on facts but rather some people with a bad experience who try to project their aversion against an entire species.

I think they have a name for that, i wonder what it is.....

[Whistling Pops]

Personally, I don't like pit bull dogs, even though I am a dog lover. But I think the "your rights be damned " attitude is more dangerous than a pit bull dog.

[Walden]

..they can take your dog too...

Denver Dog Ban

Some quotes: "Since May, more than 380 dogs have been impounded and at least 260 destroyed — an average of more than three a day.

Dog owners are in a panic. Some are using an underground railroad of sorts, sending their pets to live elsewhere or hiding them from authorities...
...But Denver's ban applies to any dog that looks like a pit bull. The animal's actual behavior does not matter"

It is sad.

[missy]

Blackwood - I'm with you......

Cincinnati has (after having some really stupid restriction laws) passed a total ban on pit bulls. Guess what type of dog just bit one of our Citizens on Patrol members? A german shepard. So - are they next? And after that? Rotties, boxers, dobes - when will it stop? IT'S NOT THE DOG - IT'S THE OWNER OF THE DOG!
It's illegal to shoot and kill another person - so far we've had 56 murders this year. It's illegal to make or sell meth - I can't keep count of the numbers of arrests.
If you want to stop crimes and death - strictly enforce the laws that are already there. Have a "vicious" dog ordinance - I'm all for that. Just not a breed specific one.

[The Weekenders]

I think muzzling, which I saw in Venice, is a preferable compromise. Good luck gettin' the muzzles on, though.