Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Would you support imposing restrictions to breeding pit-bulls? [View all]PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)14. Something else. I agree with the ASPCA position on BSL
http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/breed-specific-legislation-1.aspx
Ideally, a breed-neutral approach should include the following:
Enhanced enforcement of dog license laws, with adequate fees to augment animal control budgets and surcharges on ownership of unaltered dogs to help fund low-cost pet sterilization programs in the communities in which the fees are collected. To ensure a high licensing rate, Calgary, Canadaits animal control program funded entirely by license fees and finesimposes a $250 penalty for failure to license a dog over three months of age (Calgary Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw, 2006).
Laws that mandate the sterilization of shelter animals, ideally before adoption, and make low-cost sterilization services widely available. (See ASPCA Position Statement on Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws, 2008[link])
Enhanced enforcement of leash/dog-at-large laws, with adequate penalties to ensure that the laws are taken seriously and to augment animal control funding.
Dangerous dog laws that are breed-neutral and focus on the behavior of the individual guardian and dog (taking care to ensure that common puppy behaviors such as jumping up, rough play and nipping are not deemed evidence of dangerousness).
Graduated penalties should include mandated sterilization and microchipping (or other permanent identification) of dogs deemed dangerous, and options for mandating muzzling, confinement, adult supervision, training and owner education. In aggravated circumstancessuch as where the dog seriously injures or kills a person, or a qualified behaviorist who has personally evaluated the dog determines that the dog poses a substantial risk of such behavioreuthanasia may be justified. In Multnomah County, Oregon, a breed-neutral ordinance imposing graduated penalties on dogs and guardians according to the seriousness of the dogs behavior has reduced repeat injurious bites from 25 percent to seven percent (Bradley, 2006).
Laws that hold dog guardians financially accountable for a failure to adhere to animal control laws, as well as civilly and criminally liable for unjustified injuries or damage caused by their dogs. Calgary, Canada, has reduced reported incidents of aggression by 56 percent and its bite incidents by 21 percent by requiring guardians of dogs who have displayed aggression to dogs or to humans to pay fines ranging from $250 to $1500 (Calgary Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw, 2006).
Laws that prohibit chaining or tethering (taking care also to prohibit unreasonable confinement once a dog is removed from a chain), coupled with enhanced enforcement of animal cruelty and animal fighting laws. Lawrence, Kansas, significantly reduced dog fighting and cruelty complaints by enacting an ordinance prohibiting tethering a dog for more than one hour (Belt, 2006).
Ideally, a breed-neutral approach should include the following:
Enhanced enforcement of dog license laws, with adequate fees to augment animal control budgets and surcharges on ownership of unaltered dogs to help fund low-cost pet sterilization programs in the communities in which the fees are collected. To ensure a high licensing rate, Calgary, Canadaits animal control program funded entirely by license fees and finesimposes a $250 penalty for failure to license a dog over three months of age (Calgary Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw, 2006).
Laws that mandate the sterilization of shelter animals, ideally before adoption, and make low-cost sterilization services widely available. (See ASPCA Position Statement on Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws, 2008[link])
Enhanced enforcement of leash/dog-at-large laws, with adequate penalties to ensure that the laws are taken seriously and to augment animal control funding.
Dangerous dog laws that are breed-neutral and focus on the behavior of the individual guardian and dog (taking care to ensure that common puppy behaviors such as jumping up, rough play and nipping are not deemed evidence of dangerousness).
Graduated penalties should include mandated sterilization and microchipping (or other permanent identification) of dogs deemed dangerous, and options for mandating muzzling, confinement, adult supervision, training and owner education. In aggravated circumstancessuch as where the dog seriously injures or kills a person, or a qualified behaviorist who has personally evaluated the dog determines that the dog poses a substantial risk of such behavioreuthanasia may be justified. In Multnomah County, Oregon, a breed-neutral ordinance imposing graduated penalties on dogs and guardians according to the seriousness of the dogs behavior has reduced repeat injurious bites from 25 percent to seven percent (Bradley, 2006).
Laws that hold dog guardians financially accountable for a failure to adhere to animal control laws, as well as civilly and criminally liable for unjustified injuries or damage caused by their dogs. Calgary, Canada, has reduced reported incidents of aggression by 56 percent and its bite incidents by 21 percent by requiring guardians of dogs who have displayed aggression to dogs or to humans to pay fines ranging from $250 to $1500 (Calgary Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw, 2006).
Laws that prohibit chaining or tethering (taking care also to prohibit unreasonable confinement once a dog is removed from a chain), coupled with enhanced enforcement of animal cruelty and animal fighting laws. Lawrence, Kansas, significantly reduced dog fighting and cruelty complaints by enacting an ordinance prohibiting tethering a dog for more than one hour (Belt, 2006).
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
171 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Would you support imposing restrictions to breeding pit-bulls? [View all]
La Lioness Priyanka
May 2013
OP
i am not negative about the breed per-se but i do think the breed requries
La Lioness Priyanka
May 2013
#19
Shelters are packed full of mutts. Make the same requirements for all dogs.
uppityperson
May 2013
#53
Wow, there are that many akc "pit bulls" in the shelters there? Or do you mean a dog that looks like
uppityperson
May 2013
#121
backyard breeders are akc certified usually? the shelters id them as pits or pit mixes
La Lioness Priyanka
May 2013
#122
Ah, so any dog a shelter says is a pit is a pit. Totally subjective. Got it, thanks.
uppityperson
May 2013
#126
they are popular because they are cheap and the poormans 'gun' a street status dog
Sunlei
May 2013
#155
replying with nonsensical responses is not the same as having a conversation. nt
La Lioness Priyanka
May 2013
#81
Most "adoptions" are from one individual to another and don't involve any type of screening.
Arkansas Granny
May 2013
#45
'Being held accountable' after the fact does no good when someone is maimed or killed.
randome
May 2013
#29
If 'reactionary' means 'react to a dangerous situation', them I'm guilty as charged.
randome
May 2013
#65
And the next breed that causes this level of fear should then be banned, as well.
randome
May 2013
#91
No. If you let pit bulls die out then people will miss out on their exceptionalism.
cui bono
May 2013
#132
Let's say an animal from a "reputable breeder" is involved in an attack
whatchamacallit
May 2013
#21
Don't buy it. The meanest dog and the only one to bite me was an Australian
sinkingfeeling
May 2013
#33
look at polls about how people feel about pits and look at communities
La Lioness Priyanka
May 2013
#35
Look, I know you hate the non-breed, pit bull, but I don't recognize any
sinkingfeeling
May 2013
#40
yes, i think people who equate this to orphan children or killer humans
La Lioness Priyanka
May 2013
#77
so true. i am not sure where you live but the NYC shelters in all 5 boros are
La Lioness Priyanka
May 2013
#73
we do regulate ourself. we also dont breed ourselves to sell to profit
La Lioness Priyanka
May 2013
#79
I would support a national id system for all dogs and require all dogs wear their tag.
Sunlei
May 2013
#94
No. But I would pass laws that would make it a felony to allow anydog, capable of killing humans, to
ladjf
May 2013
#93
It is a felony if your dog kills someone. problem is no one claims ownership of strays.
Sunlei
May 2013
#96
Dogs in our neighborhood are required to register their dog's DNA with shows also ownership. nt
ladjf
May 2013
#109
I think it's easier to use a scanner for a microchip,shelters,animal control and Vets have scanners.
Sunlei
May 2013
#157
another point is, dog fighting is a misdemeanor charge in some states, should be a felony.
Sunlei
May 2013
#98
no, not proposing banning. infact proposing this because banning a breed is just weird
La Lioness Priyanka
May 2013
#125
Restrict just those two breeds and unreputable breeders will move on to other breeds
Gormy Cuss
May 2013
#118
How many times does this have to be said: the breed isn't the problem. The people are.
baldguy
May 2013
#137
except it does to dogs in that breed. hence responsible breeding + screening of ownerse
La Lioness Priyanka
May 2013
#138