July 20, 2005
The Denver Pit Bull Ban. When you don't understand something, kill them all!
Posted by Jess in
Day to Day
Denver Pit Bull Ban Leads To 'Dogs in Hiding'
Yes, it's true. Pit Bull owners who live in the city of Denver wake up one morning to a knock on their door. A policeman tells them they have 30 days to remove their dog from the city, or it will be taken from them and euthenized.
Oh, by the way: Here's the ordinance, which states, "A pit bull is defined as any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, an American Staffordshire Terrier, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of these breeds."
Any dog displaying the majority of physical traits? So if my dog looks like a terrier it can get ripped from me and destroyed?
Sounds like an old fashioned witch hunt to me.
Some people are selling their houses to keep their dogs, others are bringing their dogs underground, and over 300 owners have given their dogs up, who have been placed on "death row" and destroyed.
Apparently, because Pit Bulls are bred for agressive behavior, they are unpredictable and can't be controlled.
Let's look at some issues. And please understand, most of this is just plain venting. I'm quite furious right now. You probably can't tell from reading this. I don't get that upset very often.
From someone who's worked so hard to with Matt to raise an upstanding pup, I've learned so much about pack mentality, behavior, and methodologies, and how training relies heavily on a dog's instinctive behavior anyway.
- Breed specific laws? That's just dumb, and there's really no other way to put it. Outlaw one breed, and people will just move on to the next breed to shape and mold the same way. That's why it's called 'breeding', and not just 'birth'.
- Dogs that are bred a certain way can (and in fact, must) be trained in any possible situation. In fact, it's a lifelong process. Every situation is a new situation, and therefore the dog must be trained during it. Huskies are bred to pull sleds. Owners that have huskies have to work twice as hard to get their dogs to walk on a leash, because the dog wants to pull. The dog can learn to walk on a leash, of course, but the training methods are going to be a little different for a dog that is bred to pull.
- Reboot's trained well, sure, but is she trained in all possible situations? Of course not, and it's wrong for me to say that she is. We approach all new situations with extreme caution, and make a point to teach her the right way to behave in that situation.
Sometimes we look like idiots when we are out and praise the hell out of her for sitting next to us. That doesn't look like much. But, what people don't realize is that this is probably a new situation, and we've just taught her the right way to behave in that situation. Maybe there was a squirrel in front of her and she just let it go without even wanting to chase it. Maybe she sat down when there was a piece of food in front of her. Who knows.
The point is, if she behaved correctly, she needs to know that she did it right for next time. If she didn't behave correctly, she absolutely must be corrected, or it will happen every time.
- Why is it not required that dog owners take their dogs to training? Why has there never been an ordinance for this?
- A license to breed. Sure, it's a phrase that gets used in jest of people, I know, I know. But some dogs are poorly bred so the owners can make a quick buck. They are bred with no prior knowledge of the dog's history and temperment, and are not properly socialized nor taken care of after birth. Yet these puppies are sold for $500-$2000 to families (I do understand that it's also up to the family to check out the reputability of the breeder).
- The media sensationalizes dog attacks based on breeds. Obviously any dog attack is a tragic situation, and I'm not trying to trivialize it in any way. However, dogs are profiled by breeds, and therefore create public fear and inaccurate perception about these dogs. The only thing that ever gets mentioned in any news article is the breed of the dog. Yet, there are about three major factors that can influence how a dog may respond to a situation:
1. The basic function of the dog (guard, show, pet, friend, etc.)
2. Training, socialization, and living situation of the dog
3. The reproductive status of the dog (spayed, neutered, in heat, just had puppies, etc.)
Funny how you never hear about the status of the other two factors... and we wonder why the public are scared of them?
Reboot was slated to be euthanized in a shelter in Ohio. When someone got wind, they drove to OH, picked up the entire litter, brought them back to RI, and placed them in foster homes all over the state, Reboot having been placed in the care of one of my colleagues. She's half German Shepherd-Norwegian Elkhound.
Sure, she looks mosly like an Elkhound. But she is also tan colored, and has a black dot on her cheeks. We obviously don't have a shepherd ban. But, by these rules, because she looks like a shepherd, Good Citizen Certificate or not, we'd get our 30 day notice.
I just hope it would give us enough time to sell our house.
Permalink
Comments
I see things just a little bit differently. And no, before you jump to the wrong conclusion, I am not particularly in favour of the eradication of a breed.
The problem isn't Pit Bulls (and related breeds), it's people, plain and simple. Yes, the breed was developed to be aggressive and nasty, and yes, they possess physical attributes that make them dangerous as all-get-out if they act on that aggression. For that reason, they're probably not the best choice if you're after a big, dumb ol' dog that can have its tail pulled by toddlers.
Public protestations aside, though, I have yet to meet an urban owner of a Pit Bull or Rottweiler who wanted a big, dumb ol' dog. (Okay, there was that one bull/lab mix that acted like a not-for-show Saint Bernard, but even at that the owner seemed rather disappointed in the mutt's lack of intimidation factor.) They want the "cred" that comes from owning a living, breathing weapon. They crave the sort of "respect" that comes through fear, and reward aggression. Yet somehow these same people manage to seem surprised when someone gets hurt.
And now I get to vent a bit about urban pets. There is no way anyone can convince me that keeping a large dog in a small apartment and giving it little but concrete to walk on is anything but cruel. No matter how emotionally attached you becomes to such an animal, you aren't showing it any love if the only freedom to move it gets is a twenty-minute romp in a fenced dog run on a Sunday afternnon (when the weather's not too bad and you don't have that luncheon to attend). If it were up to me, no-one would be able to own a dog that couldn't run itself to exhaution without leaving the owner's property. That means horse-sized critters in the country, just about anything short of a horse in the 'burbs, but for people living in the downtown core, a toy breed would be pushing it. Well, maybe I'd allow Basset Hounds and Dachshunds downtown. They get tired waking up from a nap.
So maybe I can feel sorry for the animals, but I have a lot less sympathy for the owners and breeders. Don't hate me too much.
We introduced the "Dangerous Dogs Act" in the UK in the mid 90's. It came after the press picked up on a statistically insignificant but upsetting spate of savagings involving children. The main brunt of the Act was Pit Bulls and their ilk.
It hasn't worked. People are still attacked by dogs (of all breeds) from time to time and some have lasting injuries. And that's sad.
It's recognised now that the Act was a classic knee jerk reaction to a wave of public concern far greater than the actual problem. It is usually referred to whenever someone starts to lobby for a new law after some particularly horrible assault, rape or murder. It's more about people wanting to be seen to do something, anything, to regain control rather than a credible response to the real issue.
In this case, as in ours, it seems that the issue is the way dogs are trained and accommodated and used. Dogs need to be socialised or they can't fulfil their part of the contract we have with them.
Look on the bright side. Our law covered the entire county in one go. You get to protest against it on a city by city, state by state basis.
Good luck.
p.s. If you want some new laws, what about banning gun ownership? Just a thought.
You and I are in the same opinion, Stan. I held off trying to point fingers at the owners...I didn't want to sound too harsh, but that's how I feel too. My problem then becomes when the *responsible* owners are the ones that get punished.
I'll be right up front and say I know nothing of life in Urban areas, I'm a suburban/country girl all the way. So you are educating me in that regards.
And I do love Rottweilers, and would love to have one. Not for guard-capabilities, I just love big dogs. I want a dog that's intelligent enough to give me a challenge to raise it and be a wonderful companion. Rotties are actually well-known to be really good with children, they form natural bonds with them. But of course, the main point, its up to the owners to protect that bond and nurture it.
And trust me, some suburban owners that I see daily don't deserve dogs either. The "invisible fence" product is all too convenient, and can lead to "invisible owners". In that case, it doesn't matter HOW big the yard is, it's still not safe for a dog to run at all when it's 95 degrees out and the dog has been out there for 9 hours straight.
Neil,
Amazing that it was for the whole country... should have called it the Dangerous Owner Act instead. If you look up statistical information for dog attacks (again, ANY attack is tragic, I *hate* sounding so... recite-ey), you can find any information you want to slant in any direction.
And they NEVER post any information about the situation, either. A news story was sensationalized awhile back about a dog attack on a little boy. Days later a much smaller article appeared with some new facts: the boy had been shooting the dog with BB gun pellets.
Why don't we, as a society, apply a little personal responsibility to the issue? Any dog owner is completely liable for any crime committed by their dog. Period. Dog assaults child (using the most notorious case type)? Owner goes to jail. For a long time, too, because assaulting children doesn't play well with judges or juries. Don't want the responsibility of owning a dog that might - through temperament or training - send you to jail? Get a different type of dog, then. Want to train your dog to have an aggressive, attacking tendency? Fine, but if you don't also instill obedience and maintain complete control, you might want to invest in some soap-on-a-rope.
It just seems logical to me that we ought to hold the humans responsible instead of the dogs. Currently, if a dog assaults a child, we probably put the dog to sleep and the owner walks. That doesn't make sense to me.
Disclaimers: I'm not really a dog lover, though I grew up in a family that always owned dogs. I'm not an expert on dogs in any way, shape or form. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not sure why I'm still adding disclaimers...
Personal responsibility? Gasp! Do people even *use* that word anymore?
And here I thought personal responsibility went out of vogue along with common sense a LOOOONG time ago...
LOL... they're too busy caught up in litigation to even remember such things as common sense and personal responsibility. :-)
