Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Fiery Pits

What are your thoughts on the banning of certain breeds of dogs? For example, Denver has put to death over 260 pit bulls since they put into effect a law banning pit bulls from the city. Are laws like this fair? Is it puppy discrimination? Or is Denver doing the right thing?


At 9:14 AM , Blogger Tamara said...

I don't even like pit bulls, but this is Puppy Genocide.

I believe the problem is usually the owner, not the dog. (Similar to be said for parents & children)

At 9:41 AM , Blogger Sarah O. said...

I agree with tamara.

Sadly, I think Denver's doing the right thing. The law is most likely meant to drive out creepy humans who think it's cool to abuse dogs so that the dogs will be mean in order to make money from other creepy people who want a scary dog.

Um, did that exreme run-on sentence make any sense to anybody?

At 10:04 AM , Blogger MrFisher said...

Sally, no doubt I am picking up what you are throwing down.

(Can you tell I'm white?)

I think the idiots are at fault here, not the poor pups. The owners started a killing trend, and now it's turned on them. Those dogs have killed children (for the sake of money and a cheap thrill). Have other breeds? I'm sure. But as many? No.

Denver authorites are (I believe) trying to make a point here.

Since I am not in the dog fighting business, and I do have kids, I would (sadly) agree with them that they seem to be doing what they can.

There's probably a more Non- Genocidal way to go about it, but what is it? There's so damned many of them, and none of them even try and speak English!

Back to the Basement

At 11:00 AM , Blogger punky said...

90% of the dogs involved in the mauling of humans are not neutered ... 70% of which are males.

Perhaps rather than killing the dogs, they might consider neutering or spaying them?

Oh, just a thought.

At 11:07 AM , Anonymous kingw said...

The humans or the dogs Punky

At 11:42 AM , Blogger punky said...

in this case, both.

At 11:55 AM , Anonymous kingw said...

I really don't care for the idea of the wholesale destruction of animals based on their breed. It is a fear response and not a long term solution.
After the pit bulls are gone, do we go after Rottweilers, Dobermans or German Shepherds. Until the only dog breed you are allowed is some useless little fluffy thing.

At 1:33 PM , Anonymous Sallyacious said...

Although I believe that different breeds have different tendencies, you can breed for personality, I also believe that the problem lies more with the owners than with the dogs. I've known some truly sweet pit bulls in my lifetime, but they were loved and cared for and trained.

I think cities should be going after the breeders. A breed gets a reputation for violence, people who have no business owning dogs go looking for a particular type as some kind of boost to their badass self-image, and irresponsible breeders sell dogs to them. And then what hell the dogs go through, living with people who want vicious beasts and so treat them as such, I hate to even imagine. A good breeder would hate to see their pups go to abusive homes, am I right, KingW?

I expect many of the dogs have personality problems due to abuse and mistreatment, and may not be rehabilitatable. (Is that a word? It is now.) For some of those poor, poor dogs, euthanasia may be the kindest choice.

But I think it's horrible that the dogs are being punished for what is at heart a human problem.

At 2:22 PM , Blogger Kafaleni said...

I think that singling out a breed (admittedly a breed that appears to be prone to more volatile behaviour) is unfair. Any dog that attacks a person* should be put down.
Most dogs who have been loved and raised in a loving atmosphere will reflect that back. Whosesale destruction of a single breed won't solve all the problems and will probably lead to black market breeding (also what about crossbreeds.. dogs that only have a little of a banned breed in them? Do they also have to die?)

*I am not including animals that do this to protect their owners or property from an imminent threat

At 2:50 PM , Blogger Higgy said...

I think it's a bit too much of a knee-jerk reaction. I mean, you could probably train a poodle to be a blood-thirsty mutt, it's just that pit-bulls are better at it. I think the dogs have gotten a bad rap over it - and I hate to see anything exterminated just for being the type that it is. Seems very genocidal to me.

On the other hand, I have no problem putting down ANYTHING that attacks a human being - and I damn well think the penalties for having your pet attack someone should be akin to murder itself.

At 3:19 PM , Blogger punky said...

I agree that the punishment for an owner whose dog fatally mauls a human should be far more severe.

It is unfortunate that pit bulls get such a bad rap. A pit raised in a loving home with proper care is one of the sweetest, most gentle and loving dogs around. Interestingly enough, they are less likely to bite than say an irish setter. The problem is that their bite is often far more deadly and they are built to kill with one bite.

It would be nice if all dog owners were required to go through a training and screening prior to be allowed to own a dog, not unlike owning a gun ... because in essence, they are both murder weapons.

At 4:13 PM , Anonymous kingw said...

Temperment is very important in any breeding program. I know a few breeders who have beautiful dogs but wont breed them because they have questionable personalities. But then these would be responsible breeders. At the AKC Dog Shows this is very strictly enforced. I have seen dogs be dismissed from the ring because of aggressiveness. A friend was bit by an Afghan Hound this weekend at a show. (Second attack will be put down)

At 11:41 PM , Blogger Kafaleni said...

Punky - I don't think fatal has to be part of the equation. I think mauling is sufficient. As much as I love animals, I value human life and safety first. If my child was "non-fatally mauled" even by a poofy little lapdog, I'd want it put down. Now.

At 8:11 AM , Anonymous Dan said...

there are no mean dogs, just mean owners. there are lots of steps to take to calm a dog down - training, nuetering/spaying, and lots of nice healthy gentle play time like throwing a stick or running. as with kids, handguns, whatever - it should be the owners risk and responsibility. if someone wants to take a chance on a pitbull with their family, that is their choice. but to take peoples dogs from them and put them to death is wrong.

At 9:01 AM , Blogger MrFisher said...

word verification = fotlagsm

Ladies? Mind if I ask how this is acheived? Scientifically speaking of course.

* starts erasing last pos

At 9:23 AM , Blogger punky said...

Kaf, I was talking about punishment for the owners. But we can put them down too, I suppose.

At 12:04 PM , Blogger Leetie said...

I don't think mass extermination is the solution, but I do think that pitbulls were bred for what they do best. Even when you get one that seems to have a "good temperament," they're still too unpredictable for me to ever trust them.

The big problem is the cultures who see ownership of pitbulls as a status symbol. They're more likely to train them to be mean. I'm all for the birth control thing.

Did you know that you can NOT get an intact greyhound? But fully-functional pitbull gonads are everywhere.

At 8:52 PM , Blogger Graz said...

I'm late to this one, so it probably won't be read, but here goes anyway. Pit bulls are a dog that is genetically superior as a hunting dog in that they can exert an incredible amount of force with their jaws, thus being able to bring down much larger prey....something akin to a lion.

That being said, there are other dogs that are temprementally worse naturally than a pit bull. The problems with pit bulls usually comes when a breeder ends up with blood lines so close that the resulting offspring have genetic defects that, more often than not, result in an animal who's demeanor and behavior is unstable. Because of the big surge in the popularity of pit bulls in the 80's, this is what happened. Breeders looking to make a quick buck started breeding any animals they had available.....sister and brother, mother and son, father and daughter. And with the way AKC is set up for registering dogs, it is very easy to slip this by them. As long as you have a dogs name from another blood line, you can register such a litter.

I owned a pit bull years ago, and he was one of the most docile, loving dogs with everyone. The most aggressive dog that I've ever owned was a chow.

Breeding and raising really have the most to do with how an animal acts.

At 2:29 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are no real concrete solutions to most social problems mankind faces these days. Denver enacted a law based on high numbers of reported cases of pitbull attacks. Are the dogs really to blame, or does Denver have a high number of irresponsible dog owners? Who knows. But the State made a decision that they needed to make in order to protect private citezens from further attacks. Good call. I own two pitbulls, and Im careful to protect them by keeping them on a leash for walks, they both been spayed and nuetered, and I have two crates. I agree with the law, its just too bad that once again, mankind screws something up for the rest of us.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home