I think hell just froze over Baron.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There are some owners who will fight tooth and nail to stop their dogs from being put down after it has mauled someone else. And some who never come forward to claim the vicious dog as their own. Takes all kinds I suppose.
I guess you feel safe from dog bites, being up on that high horse of yours. Point out what I got wrong, and stop being cryptic.
That power would only extend onto private property for the four breeds specifically mentioned in the Dangerous dogs act. As it is illegal to breed or import those dogs, and has been since 1991, dogs that were alive at the point should pretty much be dead by now, so it's hardly relevant anymore. Therefore, when I mentioned 'crazy dog' I obviously meant a dog which it is legal to own, but is of a violent disposition, and on it's owners property, a 'junkyard mongrel' if you will. Here, as I stated, the Police are powerless to intervene unless the dog is mistreated. This of course, is to continue to allow the use of guard dogs.
OK Sauna, which bits don't you grasp? Four breeds are mentioned specifically, and they cannot be bred, imported, or walked in public without a lead or muzzle. That said, they should no longer exist in the UK, as this law was passed 15 years ago, and they should all be dead by now. What is left, will be cross breeds, not specifically covered, and here is the weakness in the legislation; identification. The rest of the legislation talks about ALL breeds in public places, or on other people's property, but NOT on the owners property. In public however, it is very unlikely that anyone will get prosecuted for having a dog that is 'dangerously out of control' unless it actually bites someone. In the case you cited, an ASBO was given! ASBOs were introduced as part of a public order revamp in 1998, seven years after the Dangerous Dogs act. The Act was supposed to stand up by itself, not require additional laws to supplement it. This shows that the law itself is pretty unclear, and that the Police and authorities are reluctant to prosecute under it, hence the rather low number of prosecutions in London in that link I cited. Those were just prosections too, not convictions. While it's spirit is good, it's enactment is very poor. Technically there is power, but it is rarely exercised, and where it is, the previous legislation would have covered it largely. We still get dog bites, in the cases I cited, by Rottweilers and an American Bulldog. It's hard to see what this act has achieved therefore, so in that context, the 'no' proposition to 'should pit bulls be banned' has been proven, as it will achieve nothing in the USA either.
Licensing would provide a way to prove the lineage of a dog, ie whether it is significantly related to, or actually one of the breeds prohibted in the Act. Dogs could be inspected by a vet, and scored against a breed standard before a license was granted. Technically under certain circumstances, ie, for the four breeds mentined in the act they do, but they don't, because they cannot prove that a dog is one of the breeds mentioned in the act, so will not enter premises unless a prior event, such as a biting incident has taken place. Tecnically, also in the UK, all free men must practice their archery skills on a Sunday lest they get fined two shillings. Taxi drivers are still legally obligated to carry bails of hay for their horses, as the rules that govern them date back to horse drawn carriages. Maybe you see it now, that a law that is never enforced is not really a law? I step on the cracks in the pavement too. Like I said, a law that is never enforced is not really a law. 'usually' oh, that would stand up in court. Seems you are stretching to find an exception to prove a rule. Now, some questions for you. You seemed to be for banning pit bulls. Taking the UK as an example of where we have suposedly done that, and that we still have incidents with other breeds, do you still hold that opinion? This law will not solve any perceived problem, but just shift it. Do you grasp that?
Pit Bulls should be classified as dangerous animals like alligators, and should be living in zoos for all of us to enjoy from a distance. Their jaw strength is very high when measured per sq. inch. It can easily break a child's arm and sometimes an adults too. Any other dog that is measured to have a certain bite that exceeds a certain pound per sq. inch should also be considered to be dangerous too. It should be illegal for any parents to have a Pit Bull around any child. This is Child Endangerment . People, especially Children should be able live and not be mauled to death or seriously deformed by this dangerous animal . This breed should only be handled by licensed professionals and zoo keepers. For now, think Nueter and Spay, until deadly dogs are put away.
Good Lord! An animals temperment is a subjective thing. There are some dogs which are naturally agressive, but not "vicious." This type of dog may not be right for a family with small children, but this, of course, depends on the training of said dog. You want to spout crap about the AKC and Pit Bulls? Here's the real diagnosis on a Pit Bull's temperment: "From the past history of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the modern dog draws its character of indomitable courage, high intelligence, and tenacity. This, coupled with its affection for its friends, and children in particular, its off-duty quietness and trustworthy stability, makes it a foremost all-purpose dog." If you want to talk about the origin of the word "Pit Bull" then you aren't talking about the dog itsself. Pit Bulls are Terriers who are generally well tempered and are extremely suitable for children. The thing to which you refer is the Bull Baiting, where Bulldogs were bred to fight, but that act was banned in 1835, and the agressive attitudes have died out since. The reason pitbulls attack people usually has something to do with the dog being protective of its family and property. If you train a dog the right way you will have no problems with it.
Bull baiting has died out(I think), but dog fights certainly haven't(come visit me if you don't agree). People make their dogs sniff gunpowder to get more aggressive, but only idiots who aren't experienced with teaching fighting dogs don't teach them not to attack humans. Like I said before, in most cases, if the dog bites the other dog's owner, it loses the fight. They only association that I can image pit bulls to have with aggression is the fact that they are bred for fighting.
I believe that the way a dog has been brought up and treated by it's owner is the main factor in whether or not it's going to lash out and rip out somenones throat. Perhaps some breeds are more prone to anger and lashing out? I really have no idea. I don't think I agree that the breed should be banned. I have never had contact with a pitbull so I guess my opinion is largely invalid anyway.
The way that damn Pitbull took a chunk of meat out of my dog's gut, I'll never know why I took the time to gently pry its jaws apart to save my yelping pup's life. Why I didn't give it a swift kick and disembowel it in the same way it tried to do to my boy I'll never know, but that will never happen again. I've had a long talk with my two pals Smith and Wesson about this. It's a shame that they now have to accompany me wherever I go. It's a crying shame that a meager individual like me needs this type of protection against unwarranted, unprovoked, totally unforeseen and totally unexpected life-threatening attacks.
Police shot two pit bulls Tuesday evening after the dogs attacked a man in west Louisville. Police say three pit bulls trapped the man on top of a car. The metro council recently passed a dangerous dog ordinance, and Mayor Jerry Abramson is expected to sign it into law sometime in the next few weeks. http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=5880178
