Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I took a shot on posting this here, hoping Arkansas residents will be in this area as well - not sure I can post this under the Arkansas thread.
Little Rock is (sigh) joining forces to pan the pit bull. This was in today's paper.....there are some good points and there is some complete and total nonsense.
I am writing a letter to the editor - I would appreciate it if everyone could give me hard and fast facts and figures.....Pitbullmommie, I'd like permission to use some of your previous posts in my letter...PM me or notify me through this thread...
This is scary, scary, scary.....on the other hand, the Arkansas Democrat has pretty much come out and taken Michael Vick to the cleaners for his role in dogfighting. As stated in the paper, the evidence against him is quite overwhelming.
Please read this editorial - you may not be in Arkansas, but I can betcha this is headed your way if it's not already there, no matter how large or small of a town you live in.....peace to the pitties.... arkansasonline.com - Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
My family's smartest, sweetest, gentlest dog was an American Staffordshire Terrier. Hope had a perpetual smile on her face, which always frightened unfamiliar or misinformed folks - until they met her. As with any dog - any animal - the "owners" are the problem. In several years of shelter work, I've seen many breeds of dogs (and cats, too) made dangerously aggressive through human abuse. I wish we could ban or euthanize the people who turn companions into vicious brutes.
Sorry, Brian - I forget the online version isn't always available to everyone....and here we go.....
Man’s worst friend
Of pit bulls and their owners
By Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
LITTLE ROCK — MUTTS AREN’T called mutts, at least not in the newspaper. It’s impolite. The strays featured in Pet of the Week have enough problems without folks dissing their ancestry. Instead, it’s said the pooches are a mix. So an orphaned dog named Lickerish isn’t called a mongrel or a mutt but a Labrador mix. Izzy, who is shy and sweet, is a terrier mix. And Oompa Loompa, who is getting over a dose of heart worms, is a rat terrier . . . mix.
The folks who put together Pet ofthe Week must get good at spotting a breed. Because the swirl of canine diversity can get pretty complex. But in the end, a dog is still a dog, even if its gene pool is as mixed as a fancy margarita. Which is to say, all breeds can pretty well sit, fetch, roll over, get the paper, catchfleas, bark at the mailman and, unfortunately, bite people.
Some dogs are just more dangerous than others. Size matters. So does training.
But a particular breed of dog-the pit bull-is more likely to attack humans than other breeds. So the city of Little Rock is considering following the lead of other places in the state who have outlawed these terriers/terrors.
Ah, but just what is a pit bull? According to a committee appointed by Little Rock’s mayor to consider regulating pit bulls, the breeds in question are officially limited to the American pit bull terrier, the Staffordshire terrier, and the American Staffordshire terrier. Such distinctions escape us amateurs; fortunately, pepper spray discourages them all. Under the committee’s proposed plan, folks who own those breeds would have to register their dogs with the city, sterilize them, and install microchips that will identify them.
But what if Shredder’s owner isn’t sure of Shredder’s pedigree? (You may have noticed that owners of pit bulls don’t tend to call their pets Fido.) What happens when an owner disagrees with the city over the provenance of an alleged pit bull? The committee’s answer: Set up a canine court of appeals. Three judges-the city’s veterinarian, Stacy Spells; an unnamed member of the city’s Animal Services Advisory Board; and an interested citizen-would judge a pooch’s parentage and determine whether it falls under the pit-bull ordinance. No, we’re not kidding.
Should DNA tests be admissible as evidence? What about the state SupremeCourt? Should it have the ultimate say? Maybe an assistant city attorney could act as prosecutor. (“Are you now or have you ever been a member of the pit-bull party? If so, please bark twice. If not . . . .”) Could owners in turn hire star attorneys to argue on their dog’s behalf? (“Your honor, I object. My client is clearly a schnauzer.”)
But can a breed be a threat in itself? Sure, many pit bulls are dangerous, but many other pits are as nice and gentle as can be. Note also that plenty of other breeds-dobermans, boxers, rottweilers, German shepherds, mastiffs,Rhodesian ridgebacks, you name it-can be as nasty as dogs get. Heck, put a poodle in a box and poke it with a sharp stick for two years and
you wouldn’t want it around the kids, either.
But to an extent, canine attacks may depend on the breed. Just read the paper. And count the number of times pit bulls are involved in some ghastly piece of business. But, it’s not just the breed that determines the behavior. Much also depends on the dog’s owner. If this committee’s purpose is to target pit bulls and pit bulls alone, why not just go ahead and ban the breed? Registering a dog, giving it a microchip, even sterilizing the beast . . . all that won’t count for much when a dog goes Cujo on the kid next door. Why go all bureaucratic when public safety is at stake?
If the committee is really interested in protecting people against dog attacks, it should target the bad owners, too, not just the bad breeds. How? The city could fine the owners of any dogs whose attacks have required the victim to get medical attention. Or even make it a crime to own a dog that attacks folks. Owners of repeat offenders could be prohibited from owning dogs at all-on the principle that you lose your pet privileges when your pet turns perp.
The city could also require that owners of large dogs take out homeowners’ or renters’ insurance that specifically covers dog attacks. No insurance coverage means no dog. That way, if the little darling attacks, there should be money available to cover the damages.
The authorities could target dogs who have the wrong temperament or training, not just the wrong genes. And why overlook the kind of dog owners who tolerate or even encourage bad behavior? Let’s go after those who bear ultimate responsibility when a dog attacks: the owners who feed, house and should discipline them.
This article was published Friday, July 20, 2007.
Editorial, Pages 22 on 07/20/2007
May I add that I totally agree with holding the owner responsible for ANY dog that attacks.....but this piece of drivel is clearly aimed at starting with the APBT, regardless of how it has been cloaked by other statements. We all know it is not the people who will be held accountable, but the dogs - and they will pay for it with their very lives.
I was surfing the Little Rock Animal Shelter website yesterday - while there are still pit mixes listed on there, there are only TWO Rottweilers described as mixes - so something's up, because usually that shelter is chock-full of Rotties. The Hotel California - you can check in but never check out except four paws up....
Sorry, Brian - I forget the online version isn't always available to everyone....and here we go.....
Man’s worst friend
Of pit bulls and their owners
By Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
LITTLE ROCK — MUTTS AREN’T called mutts, at least not in the newspaper. It’s impolite. The strays featured in Pet of the Week have enough problems without folks dissing their ancestry. Instead, it’s said the pooches are a mix. So an orphaned dog named Lickerish isn’t called a mongrel or a mutt but a Labrador mix. Izzy, who is shy and sweet, is a terrier mix. And Oompa Loompa, who is getting over a dose of heart worms, is a rat terrier . . . mix.
The folks who put together Pet ofthe Week must get good at spotting a breed. Because the swirl of canine diversity can get pretty complex. But in the end, a dog is still a dog, even if its gene pool is as mixed as a fancy margarita. Which is to say, all breeds can pretty well sit, fetch, roll over, get the paper, catchfleas, bark at the mailman and, unfortunately, bite people.
Some dogs are just more dangerous than others. Size matters. So does training.
But a particular breed of dog-the pit bull-is more likely to attack humans than other breeds. So the city of Little Rock is considering following the lead of other places in the state who have outlawed these terriers/terrors.
Ah, but just what is a pit bull? According to a committee appointed by Little Rock’s mayor to consider regulating pit bulls, the breeds in question are officially limited to the American pit bull terrier, the Staffordshire terrier, and the American Staffordshire terrier. Such distinctions escape us amateurs; fortunately, pepper spray discourages them all. Under the committee’s proposed plan, folks who own those breeds would have to register their dogs with the city, sterilize them, and install microchips that will identify them.
But what if Shredder’s owner isn’t sure of Shredder’s pedigree? (You may have noticed that owners of pit bulls don’t tend to call their pets Fido.) What happens when an owner disagrees with the city over the provenance of an alleged pit bull? The committee’s answer: Set up a canine court of appeals. Three judges-the city’s veterinarian, Stacy Spells; an unnamed member of the city’s Animal Services Advisory Board; and an interested citizen-would judge a pooch’s parentage and determine whether it falls under the pit-bull ordinance. No, we’re not kidding.
Should DNA tests be admissible as evidence? What about the state SupremeCourt? Should it have the ultimate say? Maybe an assistant city attorney could act as prosecutor. (“Are you now or have you ever been a member of the pit-bull party? If so, please bark twice. If not . . . .”) Could owners in turn hire star attorneys to argue on their dog’s behalf? (“Your honor, I object. My client is clearly a schnauzer.”)
But can a breed be a threat in itself? Sure, many pit bulls are dangerous, but many other pits are as nice and gentle as can be. Note also that plenty of other breeds-dobermans, boxers, rottweilers, German shepherds, mastiffs,Rhodesian ridgebacks, you name it-can be as nasty as dogs get. Heck, put a poodle in a box and poke it with a sharp stick for two years and
you wouldn’t want it around the kids, either.
But to an extent, canine attacks may depend on the breed. Just read the paper. And count the number of times pit bulls are involved in some ghastly piece of business. But, it’s not just the breed that determines the behavior. Much also depends on the dog’s owner. If this committee’s purpose is to target pit bulls and pit bulls alone, why not just go ahead and ban the breed? Registering a dog, giving it a microchip, even sterilizing the beast . . . all that won’t count for much when a dog goes Cujo on the kid next door. Why go all bureaucratic when public safety is at stake?
If the committee is really interested in protecting people against dog attacks, it should target the bad owners, too, not just the bad breeds. How? The city could fine the owners of any dogs whose attacks have required the victim to get medical attention. Or even make it a crime to own a dog that attacks folks. Owners of repeat offenders could be prohibited from owning dogs at all-on the principle that you lose your pet privileges when your pet turns perp.
The city could also require that owners of large dogs take out homeowners’ or renters’ insurance that specifically covers dog attacks. No insurance coverage means no dog. That way, if the little darling attacks, there should be money available to cover the damages.
The authorities could target dogs who have the wrong temperament or training, not just the wrong genes. And why overlook the kind of dog owners who tolerate or even encourage bad behavior? Let’s go after those who bear ultimate responsibility when a dog attacks: the owners who feed, house and should discipline them.
This article was published Friday, July 20, 2007.
Editorial, Pages 22 on 07/20/2007
May I add that I totally agree with holding the owner responsible for ANY dog that attacks.....but this piece of drivel is clearly aimed at starting with the APBT, regardless of how it has been cloaked by other statements. We all know it is not the people who will be held accountable, but the dogs - and they will pay for it with their very lives.
I was surfing the Little Rock Animal Shelter website yesterday - while there are still pit mixes listed on there, there are only TWO Rottweilers described as mixes - so something's up, because usually that shelter is chock-full of Rotties. The Hotel California - you can check in but never check out except four paws up....
"Some dogs are just more dangerous than others. Size matters. So does training." Yes, some dogs are more dangerous than others, that really doesn't have anything to do with breed. Yes, size does matter, and well, all three "pit bull" breeds are small-medium breeds. And yes, training is crucial!
"But a particular breed of dog-the pit bull-is more likely to attack humans than other breeds." First of all, as I have said countless times, "pit bull" isn't a breed. Also, I would really, really, really like to see where they are getting that "pit bulls", some of the only breeds that were bred specifically to be amazingly human friendly, breeds that test higher than most popular family breeds such as Goldens and Beagles in temperament tests, are more likely to attack humans than other breeds?!
"But what if Shredder’s owner isn’t sure of Shredder’s pedigree? (You may have noticed that owners of pit bulls don’t tend to call their pets Fido.)" Haha.. That's funny!! My three American Pit Bull Terriers are named Brooklyn, Destiny and Jayda, how is that anything like Shredder??!!?? Other "pit bulls" that I know of have names like.. Lady Layla, Dakota, Lou Dog, Karma, Vega, Bentley, Sweetie, Lexie, Dozer.. Hmm, none of those names sound anything like Shredder either?? That's funny.. huh!
"But to an extent, canine attacks may depend on the breed. Just read the paper. And count the number of times pit bulls are involved in some ghastly piece of business." Again, as I have said countless time before, the media is not a very reliable source. Many of those "pit bulls" that have attacked people aren't even "pit bulls" and it always seems like these "pit bulls" attack for no reason doesn't it? Well, ask anyone who knows anything about dogs and you will see that no dog, no matter what breed it is just attacks for no reason. "But, it’s not just the breed that determines the behavior. Much also depends on the dog’s owner." That is true, the owner will play a HUGE roll in determining how the dog will be.
"If the committee is really interested in protecting people against dog attacks, it should target the bad owners, too, not just the bad breeds. How? The city could fine the owners of any dogs whose attacks have required the victim to get medical attention. Or even make it a crime to own a dog that attacks folks. Owners of repeat offenders could be prohibited from owning dogs at all-on the principle that you lose your pet privileges when your pet turns perp" Well, I don't agree that breeds should ever be targeted at all, but I do agree that the bad owners should be!
"The city could also require that owners of large dogs take out homeowners’ or renters’ insurance that specifically covers dog attacks. No insurance coverage means no dog. That way, if the little darling attacks, there should be money available to cover the damages." The whole insurance thing wouldn't affect us then.. lol.. seeing as how we own a medium breed and all of our dogs are much smaller than the breed "should" be. I sense a hint of sarcasm here...
"The authorities could target dogs who have the wrong temperament or training, not just the wrong genes. And why overlook the kind of dog owners who tolerate or even encourage bad behavior? Let’s go after those who bear ultimate responsibility when a dog attacks: the owners who feed, house and should discipline them." I agree that they should be targeting the dogs that have the "wrong" temperament and training.. I'm not quite sure what the "wrong" genes would be, but no dog should be targeted simply because of it's genes! People should be going after the bad owners, not certain breeds!
I'm sure I missed some stuff that I meant to comment on, but I definitely touched on most! lol! I think this whole thing is ridiculous, sad, lazy, close-minded and it won't fix anything!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
pittie ban
Many of those "pit bulls" that have attacked people aren't even "pit bulls" and it always seems like these "pit bulls" attack for no reason doesn't it? Well, ask anyone who knows anything about dogs and you will see that no dog, no matter what breed it is just attacks for no reason. 
I sense a hint of sarcasm here... 
