Time For The Elimination Of The Pit Bull

[MeanMag]

Why stop with eliminating one breed? Bears kill people so lets kill them back. Along with Cars, Tigers, Aligators, Cancer, Wolves, Sharks, and Bulls kill people in Rodeo. Only humans should be on this earth since only they have the capability of reasoning.

On a serious note, those who think that any breed or any animal should be eliminated have already lost their reasoning abilities. You aren't entitled to choose which live and which die just because you have the ability to kill something and those in law enforcement and public service should know this already.

I have known a few pits that are the nicest dogs in the world. However, I do think they have no business being in a house with my children. Society shouldn't waste the effort trying to enforce the unenforceable and shouldn't tell folks how to live. There is no cure for stupid, and unfortunately there are lots of stupid people out there. Unless the stupid people kill themselves, there is no answer. Those pictures really pull your strings, but it is very hard to protect people from themselves. Owners should be responsible and ready to deal with the consequences of anything they own. This is no exception.

[GreenBat]

Yeah, and the majority of those killed by guns, used them on themselves!!!!! I don't have a problem with that at all. People who use the guns to kill, can reason. Pit's can't. They attack for NO reason and children are most of their victims. Guns and Pits, two complete different topics.

Rick

I agree, that's why GUNS need to ELIMINATED, noy banned or made illegal. Think about it. A world without GUNS! Ah Utopia!!

[TheTastyGreek]

I agree, that's why GUNS need to ELIMINATED, noy banned or made illegal. Think about it. A world without GUNS! Ah Utopia!!

I saw that once on an episode of the Simpsons... It didn't go well.

Someone be sure to keep a board with a nail through it lying around. We may just need it.

[Green P1]

Someone be sure to keep a board with a nail through it lying around. We may just need it.

How about an even bigger board with an even bigger nail it it?

[FirefightnRick]

Why stop with eliminating one breed? Bears kill people so lets kill them back. Along with Cars, Tigers, Aligators, Cancer, Wolves, Sharks, and Bulls kill people in Rodeo. Only humans should be on this earth since only they have the capability of reasoning.

On a serious note, those who think that any breed or any animal should be eliminated have already lost their reasoning abilities. You aren't entitled to choose which live and which die just because you have the ability to kill something and those in law enforcement and public service should know this already.

I have known a few pits that are the nicest dogs in the world. However, I do think they have no business being in a house with my children. Society shouldn't waste the effort trying to enforce the unenforceable and shouldn't tell folks how to live. There is no cure for stupid, and unfortunately there are lots of stupid people out there. Unless the stupid people kill themselves, there is no answer. Those pictures really pull your strings, but it is very hard to protect people from themselves. Owners should be responsible and ready to deal with the consequences of anything they own. This is no exception.

Your in there with King I suppose, and that's ok. Continue to ignore the facts. That's fine with me. I'll rely on my personal experiences. Guns are somewhat controlled. Pit ownership isn't. You cannot sell, or own certain animals(large cats, Parahna's etc, certain turtles) without proper licensing. If you want to purchase a specific gun from a dealer there's a waiting period(unless you have a license), and if you want to carry it you own a license. There's SOME control over them. Yet, you can buy, sell and breed pits with zero control and walk them down the street in the open, to attack anything and everything it cares to and all you get is a fine, if that? That's what is changing in places like Aurora and Denver Colorado and it needs to happen in Texas, statewide.

Rick

[Green P1]

Your in there with King I suppose, and that's ok. Continue to ignore the facts. That's fine with me. I'll rely on my personal experiences. Guns are somewhat controlled. Pit ownership isn't. You cannot sell, or own certain animals(large cats, Parahna's etc, certain turtles) without proper licensing. If you want to purchase a specific gun from a dealer there's a waiting period(unless you have a license), and if you want to carry it you own a license. There's SOME control over them. Yet, you can buy, sell and breed pits with zero control and walk them down the street in the open, to attack anything and everything it cares to and all you get is a fine, if that? That's what is changing in places like Aurora and Denver Colorado and it needs to happen in Texas, statewide.

Rick

I don't think anyone on here has disagreed with the idea that there needs to be more control over ownership. It's the idea that we should rid the world of the breed that is at the heart of the discussion.

[KingDL1]

I don't think anyone on here has disagreed with the idea that there needs to be more control over ownership. It's the idea that we should rid the world of the breed that is at the heart of the discussion.

Hey I am for control, I know there are plenty of dumba$$es out there. I just know that any larger breed can be dangerous if they are not trained well, bred well, and treated well.

The control put in San Francisco works for me, neutered and spayed dogs (Altered) are much less aggressive. And they can't be backyard breeders.

Pit Bull Ordinance

A new law is now in effect that makes it illegal to own an unaltered pit bull - or pit bull mix - in San Francisco. Also in effect is San Francisco Health Code Section 44, which requires owners to obtain a permit from Animal Care and Control in order to breed their pit bull or pit bull mixes. These laws went into effect after the Governor signed SB 861 into law - paving the way for cities and counties to create legislation specific to spaying and neutering of particular breeds of dogs.

I talked with a breeder today, and he said it is really sad what stereotype is going around for pits.

He listed several things that have lead to this situation, besides uncontrolled breeding in areas, mistreating dogs, and not training them.

Two of several things really hit me, he said lots of people get dogs now put them in too small a yard or no yard. Lots of dogs need to burn off energy, and then no-one is home with them all day. He said it used to be the dog was part of the family with lots of attention and someone home most of the day to keep them company. Without the socialization dogs used to get for the most part you need better training. Or they can start acting antisocial. He went off on it, definitely a hot button for him.

I realize Rick gets the unfortunate task of seeing some of the worst of it.

Edited May 26, 2008 by KingDL1

[FirefightnRick]

Hey I am for control, I know there are plenty of dumba$$es out there. I just know that any larger breed can be dangerous if they are not trained well, bred well, and treated well.

The control put in San Francisco works for me, neutered and spayed dogs (Altered) are much less aggressive. And they can't be backyard breeders.

Pit Bull Ordinance

A new law is now in effect that makes it illegal to own an unaltered pit bull - or pit bull mix - in San Francisco. Also in effect is San Francisco Health Code Section 44, which requires owners to obtain a permit from Animal Care and Control in order to breed their pit bull or pit bull mixes. These laws went into effect after the Governor signed SB 861 into law - paving the way for cities and counties to create legislation specific to spaying and neutering of particular breeds of dogs.

I talked with a breeder today, and he said it is really sad what stereotype is going around for pits.

He listed several things that have lead to this situation, besides uncontrolled breeding in areas, mistreating dogs, and not training them.

Two of several things really hit me, he said lots of people get dogs now put them in too small a yard or no yard. Lots of dogs need to burn off energy, and then no-one is home with them all day. He said it used to be the dog was part of the family with lots of attention and someone home most of the day to keep them company. Without the socialization dogs used to get for the most part you need better training. Or they can start acting antisocial. He went off on it, definitely a hot button for him.

I realize Rick gets the unfortunate task of seeing some of the worst of it.

I completely agree with everything he said. It's just that, for me, I see it as being too late to reverse the trend. And I would be all for the same thing in Fort Worth that SF has for their Pit Bull ordinance. The next time I get the chance to talk with many of the city leadership we see on the job from time to time I will be bringing this up to them as an example, as well as Denver and Aurora's example.

Rick

[Eagle1855]

Why stop with eliminating one breed? Bears kill people so lets kill them back. Along with Cars, Tigers, Aligators, Cancer, Wolves, Sharks, and Bulls kill people in Rodeo. Only humans should be on this earth since only they have the capability of reasoning.

On a serious note, those who think that any breed or any animal should be eliminated have already lost their reasoning abilities. You aren't entitled to choose which live and which die just because you have the ability to kill something and those in law enforcement and public service should know this already.

I have known a few pits that are the nicest dogs in the world. However, I do think they have no business being in a house with my children. Society shouldn't waste the effort trying to enforce the unenforceable and shouldn't tell folks how to live. There is no cure for stupid, and unfortunately there are lots of stupid people out there. Unless the stupid people kill themselves, there is no answer. Those pictures really pull your strings, but it is very hard to protect people from themselves. Owners should be responsible and ready to deal with the consequences of anything they own. This is no exception.

Great post. Not just because I happen to completely agree with it but also because it is rational and logical...and it requires people to take responsibility for their own actions. What a concept!

[Cerebus]

Your logic is spot-on here.

I also bet if someone did a study on those attacks, you'd find that the majority of pit bulls involved in attacks are owned by people like that.

In the UK, it's guns and knives now. Soon, it'll be scissors. Seriously, banning a breed of dog is essentially another step in the direction of stupid things like a national gun ban. And let's not even get all of GMG started on a national gun ban because I'd like to think we all understand that while law enforcement does its best to prevent crimes, they can't be there at the moment someone smashes into your home.

Agreed.

The last time I was in London the major story was a push to ban dinner knives over 2 inches in length, as there is an epidemic of stabbings deaths in the country. Some how, banning guns didn't stop people killing each other, a shock to a nation that had been killing one another for a few thousand years before guns were invented.

I looked up some CDC stats, and I have to admit that pits and rots are by far the most dangerous dogs, they make up about 75% of serious dog attack injuries. If there is a dog breed that needs to be regulated, it is the pit and rot.

However, to put it into perspective, dogs kill about 30 PEOPLE a year. Back yard swimming pools kill about 400 CHILDREN under 10 a year.

[KingDL1]

The last time I was in London the major story was a push to ban dinner knives over 2 inches in length, as there is an epidemic of stabbings deaths in the country. Some how, banning guns didn't stop people killing each other, a shock to a nation that had been killing one another for a few thousand years before guns were invented.

I looked up some CDC stats, and I have to admit that pits and rots are by far the most dangerous dogs, they make up about 75% of serious dog attack injuries. If there is a dog breed that needs to be regulated, it is the pit and rot.

However, to put it into perspective, dogs kill about 30 PEOPLE a year. Back yard swimming pools kill about 400 CHILDREN under 10 a year.

it puts the number of violent teenage deaths in London at 14 so far this year.

Wow 14 teenagers killed violently this year already in London alone, now they want to search anyone at random for a knife.

I will keep my guns.

[FirefightnRick]

Great post. Not just because I happen to completely agree with it but also because it is rational and logical...and it requires people to take responsibility for their own actions. What a concept!

Oh YES! YES! YES!, What a concept: If we could only teach "Rational" and "Logic" to the breed that is doing most of the mauling!

Base public affairs officers say the investigation(of the fatality) shows a short time later the Pit Bull became startled and excited by something the child was doing and the dog attacked him. The base says the dog was not provoked by the child.

Texas Mauling:

"I think she probably just used him for a ladder basically you know climbed on him and maybe stepped on his foot or something like that but she was in no way being mean to the dog," says L.J. Donaldson, Elsie's father.

Rick

Edited May 27, 2008 by FirefightnRick

[Eagle1855]

Oh YES! YES! YES!, What a concept: If we could only teach "Rational" and "Logic" to the breed that is doing most of the mauling!

Yeah we got it, you've made your point. Nobody is reading this thread questioning where you stand on the subject, however irrational or illogical that position may seem.

Posting the same thing over and over instead of addressing people's objections (some of which are valid) to your "call to kill all pit bulls" (which some might say is a slippery slope) is exhausting.

Just so we're clear, I in no way insinuated these kids provoked these dogs. Reading comprehension would show that I believe that by holding the people that own and breed these dogs accountable for ANYTHING their dog does might cause them to think twice about owning them or how they treat them.

What has happened to these people and kids is awful (thanks for continually posting pictures, I'll see if I can't find some shark and bear attacks before lunch and we can all puke together), but the problem is greater than the dogs.

Enjoy the myopia!

Edited May 27, 2008 by Eagle1855

[KRAM1]

Folks, to me it is useless to continue to argue for the Pit Bull being a breed worthy of being a pet or anywhere withinn 5 miles of a human for that matter. The breed is "screwed up" as are many (I did not say all) of the owners of Pit Bulls. Again, why in the sam hill would anyone...ANYONE...bring a Pit Bull into a home? You can argue the merits of the breed all you want, but there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON that has any justification AT ALL for the Pit Bull being a good family pet! Give that one a rest PLEASE AND THANK YOU. I would be more than happy if there was a "bounty" on Pit Bulls like there was at one time on other "dangerous critters" in New Mexico and elsewhere. OK, so maybe I am not THAT bold as to advocate a "bounty", but I do advocate placing a big burden on the owners (financially and otherwise) on the owners of such animals (not just Pit Bulls). You want one...ok...buy a bond with cash to handle the financial part and sign a document acknowledging you know the dangers in owning such an animal and being will to GO TO JAIL should the darn thing do harm to anyone. I wonder how many Pit Bull "pets" would be around the neighborhood??? Hmmmmmmmmm...I do HATE the damn things! WORTHLESS...TOTALLY WORTHLESS!

[FirefightnRick]

Yeah we got it, you've made your point. Nobody is reading this thread questioning where you stand on the subject, however irrational or illogical that position may seem.

Irrational or Illogical to you.

Posting the same thing over and over instead of addressing people's objections (some of which are valid) to your "call to kill all pit bulls" (which some might say is a slippery slope) is exhausting.

So it's ok for you to continue to post the same thing over and over again(that my oppinion is irrational/wrong/etc) but not ok for me to do the same? And obviously it' not that exhausting for you since here you are, posting about it on the 5th page?

Just so we're clear, I in no way insinuated these kids provoked these dogs. Reading comprehension would show that I believe that by holding the people that own and breed these dogs accountable for ANYTHING their dog does might cause them to think twice about owning them or how they treat them.

Your lack of understanding that the dogs attack their own family members for no reason and without warning is why I continue to show they do. How do you hold someone accountable for raising and properlyl taking care of something that then, for NO reason at all and often times years down the road mauls them or a family member? All they have to do is state it was an unprovoked attack, that it's never happened before and then it's simply written off as an unforseeable tragic accident, unless of course there was previous evidence of trouble and warnings. Then if that's the case it's a slap on the wrist. How is that going to prevent it from happening again? It doesn't.

What has happened to these people and kids is awful (thanks for continually posting pictures, I'll see if I can't find some shark and bear attacks before lunch and we can all puke together), but the problem is greater than the dogs.

Go right ahead but as you may can tell, I'm quite used to the sight of trauma from real world experiences. Reality can be harsh at times. And I agree, the problem is greater than the dogs in that they are allowed to continue to increase in great numbers and that they are being allowed to continue to exist at all.

Rick

Edited May 27, 2008 by FirefightnRick

[Eagle1855]

Your lack of understanding that the dogs attack their own family members for no reason and without warning is why I continue to show they do. How do you hold someone accountable for raising and properlyl taking care of something that then, for NO reason at all and often times years down the road mauls them or a family member? All they have to do is state it was an unprovoked attack, that it's never happened before and then it's simply written off as an unforseeable tragic accident, unless of course there was previous evidence of trouble and warnings. Then if that's the case it's a slap on the wrist. How is that going to prevent it from happening again? It doesn't.

Once again the reading (in)comprehension bug attacks the gomeangreen board. I keep repeating things because you keep attacking an argument that I haven't even presented.

Again, I said PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE to OWN THE DOGS should be held LIABLE for anything their pets do- whether the dog was provoked or not. People should also have to have a license to breed them. If people are stupid enough to keep a dangerous breed of ANY animal around a child, they deserve whatever punishment the law deems appropriate. It should, however, be their decision and it doesn't require the eradication of an entire species of an animal because of our stupidity. Which is why I said people should be held accountable for their actions. That was never meant to be understood as their actions relating to the provocation of a dog.

Again, you're focusing heavily on the things right in front of you as opposed to the big picture and the implications such a charge has on future problems with the interaction between animals and humans.

I can appreciate what you do. Actually, I really can't... the things you've done and seen are beyond my comprehension and my realm of experience. But that doesn't make my opinion on what is socially responsible any less valid.

Edited May 27, 2008 by Eagle1855

[FirefightnRick]

Once again the reading (in)comprehension bug attacks the gomeangreen board. I keep repeating things because you keep attacking an argument that I haven't even presented.

I'm against your arguement that simply punishing those who own the dogs will solve the problem because it's so wide spread that I don't see how it would be feasable in several ways. Any current punishment someon faces for their negligence has zero affect as a deterrent. Your not going to change peoples' behavior with their dogs. It would be much easier and less costly to eliminate the problem rather than tying up emergency rooms, emergency workers, police, invesitgators, animal control officers and last but not least, the COURTS. Pits should be eliminated and there should be extremely harsh fines for any dog fighting that continues afterwards. The very fact that it's now illegal to own one(elimination) in at least two cities and that they have realized a drop in vilolent dog maulings since that ban proves my point.

Rick

Edited May 29, 2008 by FirefightnRick

[KingDL1]

I'm against your arguement that simply punishing those who own the dogs will solve the problem because it's so wide spread that I don't see how it would be feasable in several ways. Any current punishment someon faces for their negligence has zero affect as a deterrent. Your not going to change peoples' behavior with their dogs. It would be much easier and less costly to eliminate the problem rather than tying up emergency rooms, emergency workers, police, invesitgators, animal control officers and last but not least, the COURTS. Pits should be eliminated and there should be extremely harsh fines for any dog fighting that continues afterwards. The very fact that it's now illegal to own one(elimination) in at least two cities and that they have realized a drop in vilolent dog maulings since that ban proves my point.

Rick

Pits on the bad side are still a tiny percentage of total pits out there, and calling for the elimination is ridiculous just from the shear numbers you are talking about. Because people will never turn in their dogs but you are more likely to get them neuter and spayed which significantly reduces their aggressiveness. I assume Rick you just want to reduce these kinds of dog attacks. I think realistically control is the best bet. I would never support an all out breed elimination and none of the humane/animal foundations would either. But I do support strict control and if you dog attacks and it is not altered then you they will have hell to pay, if you are in possession of an unaltered Pit the fine should be high enough that it just makes since for most people to do what is right.

Tony

[Eagle1855]

I'm against your arguement that simply punishing those who own the dogs will solve the problem because it's so wide spread that I don't see how it would be feasable in several ways. Any current punishment someon faces for their negligence has zero affect as a deterrent. Your not going to change peoples' behavior with their dogs. It would be much easier and less costly to eliminate the problem rather than tying up emergency rooms, emergency workers, police, invesitgators, animal control officers and last but not least, the COURTS. Pits should be eliminated and there should be extremely harsh fines for any dog fighting that continues afterwards. The very fact that it's now illegal to own one(elimination) in at least two cities and that they have realized a drop in vilolent dog maulings since that ban proves my point.

Rick

So you think that having (hiring) people to go out and kill them all would cost LESS money than the few cases a year where people are attacked? I just can't see that being the case. Not to mention the backlash that will undoubtedly come from the animal-loving public.

And just because a city has made it illegal doesn't prove that your suggestion is "right". Im not really sure Im interested in the govt legislating more of what I can and can't do. And what kind of "drop" in maulings are we talking about? Im just curious. I'd like to know the numbers.

Obviously if we killed all of the bears in North America, we wouldn't have to worry about those bastards either. Though Im not sure that would be the "responsible" thing to do.

Edited May 29, 2008 by Eagle1855

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

Obviously if we killed all of the bears in North America, we wouldn't have to worry about those bastards either. Though Im not sure that would be the "responsible" thing to do.

And the number one threat to America............BEARS!!!

Edited May 29, 2008 by BeanCounterGrad'03

[meangreendork]

.

Rick

I can show you photos of gunshot wounds and knife wounds and tell you the same thing. I can show you someone's abdomen opened up by a bullet and say that it's horrible what a bullet does to someone and that you wouldn't want that to happen to your daughter. I can show you a slash wound to someone's back and ask you if you want that to happen to your friends.

Guess what, I'm not telling you we need to ban guns and knives because just like ANYTHING, they're dangerous when used improperly. Heck, I can give you 10 reasons to ban the PENCIL because it's a dangerous instrument. I could tell you why it's unsafe to own anything because it's potentially dangerous.

But I won't. Why? Because that sort of issue lies in the hands of the owner, and therefore becomes their responsibility to own it. If they're clearly not smart enough or responsible enough to own something because it leads to abuse and unsafe situation, then take the privilege away because their freedom to own something has infringed on someone else's right to live safely. That doesn't in any way include stripping something away from everyone.

Heck, killing an entire breed of animal will be horribly expensive because now you need to properly dispose of each body and find some way of compensating the owners for their loss. Why will you need to compensate them? Because I'm betting you they won't stand by and watch their animal be shot or dragged off to be given the needle. A logical person will also see the great possibility that each confiscation will also lead to a lawsuit, and probably a repeal of the law.

[FirefightnRick]

I can show you photos of gunshot wounds and knife wounds and tell you the same thing. I can show you someone's abdomen opened up by a bullet and say that it's horrible what a bullet does to someone and that you wouldn't want that to happen to your daughter. I can show you a slash wound to someone's back and ask you if you want that to happen to your friends.

Guess what, I'm not telling you we need to ban guns and knives because just like ANYTHING, they're dangerous when used improperly. Heck, I can give you 10 reasons to ban the PENCIL because it's a dangerous instrument. I could tell you why it's unsafe to own anything because it's potentially dangerous.

But I won't. Why? Because that sort of issue lies in the hands of the owner, and therefore becomes their responsibility to own it. If they're clearly not smart enough or responsible enough to own something because it leads to abuse and unsafe situation, then take the privilege away because their freedom to own something has infringed on someone else's right to live safely. That doesn't in any way include stripping something away from everyone.

Heck, killing an entire breed of animal will be horribly expensive because now you need to properly dispose of each body and find some way of compensating the owners for their loss. Why will you need to compensate them? Because I'm betting you they won't stand by and watch their animal be shot or dragged off to be given the needle. A logical person will also see the great possibility that each confiscation will also lead to a lawsuit, and probably a repeal of the law.

I've never heard of a gun, a knife or a pencil jumping out of a back yard on their own and attacking someone? Does that happen in your part of the world?

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

I would never support an all out breed elimination and none of the humane/animal foundations would either.

I agree, of course they wouldn't. Tough titty for them I suppose.

Eagle1855

So you think that having (hiring) people to go out and kill them all would cost LESS money than the few cases a year where people are attacked? I just can't see that being the case. Not to mention the backlash that will undoubtedly come from the animal-loving public.

And just because a city has made it illegal doesn't prove that your suggestion is "right". Im not really sure Im interested in the govt legislating more of what I can and can't do. And what kind of "drop" in maulings are we talking about? Im just curious. I'd like to know the numbers.

It doesn't list a number but you can watch the video here yourself.

Aurora Colorado continues ban two years later from '05 to '07

"According to code enforcement officials over the past two years 800 Pit Bulls have been euthenized". "According to officials, since the ban the number of dog related service calls have dropped as well as the number of dog bite calls"

Rick

Edited May 29, 2008 by FirefightnRick

[KingDL1]

I've never heard of a gun, a knife or a pencil jumping out of a back yard on their own and attacking someone? Does that happen in your part of the world?

Rick

Rogue Pencil ATTACKS!

Wed May 28, 11:16 AM ET

S Park, CO (Reuters) - An unidentified flying object was spotted in a small central Colorado town, Denver media said Wednesday, a day after the air force retracted a report of a mysterious plane crash.

A Colorado News Agency said residents of South Park Township, 10 km (6 miles) off Interstate Highway 70 in the county of Park, found shards of wood, including one piece of graphite 1.5 centimeters (.5 inches) long.

"The Pencil attack happened at about 1 meter (3.5 feet) above the ground, and perhaps it was a jumbo pencil, but authorities could not identify whether it was a civil or military pencil," The South Park Mayor's Office said in a report headlined "Pencil Attacks over Park County."

Soldiers were sent out to look for survivors, and local authorities contacted pencil Manufactures worldwide, but received no reports of missing wild pencils, the official Colorado news agency added.

Villagers in South Park said Tuesday that they had heard loud pencil attacks. Wednesday they told Reuters they had found small chunks of wood and graphite near the coastline of the local lake.

McDaniels mayor of South Park, said Tuesday she had been told of a fatal pencil attacks in Park County, but later backed off her claims of fatal attacks.

(Writing by Dougie McCool and Ed Cropley in S Park, CO; Editing by Bill & Terence)

[KRAM1]

ENOUGH ALREADY! Good thread, but looks to me like folks have their minds p[retty well made up on this subject. Let's talk football!