Quote:
Originally Posted by Britster  I'm not sure where you are getting that it's a load of crock. I admit, I didn't do any deep searching but that list is on multiple dog forums. I'm going to go search now to find out more info. I could not find anything about it being "fake" on Google, and usually snopes would have something. I believe they are simply saying that this list of dog breeds are banned SOMEWHERE. An apartment complex in, say, California, may have Pugs banned, etc. Irregardless, it just proves how ridiculous BSL really is and you can't just naturally assume your breed is "safe". Ban one breed, you're allowing them to be able to ban any breed they want for any reason.
I posted this above but everyone that is for BSL seemed to pass by some of the facts I posted. In the ten years since the Dangerous Dogs Act banned the last 4 dogs in the UK (Fila, PB 'type', Dogo Argentino and Japanese Tosa) dog bites have increased by 50%. Clearly... something is NOT working.
We don't wipe out or ban the German's because Hitler was a terrible man.
So why is it any different for dogs? Thanks to BYBers and puppy millers, Golden Retrievers have been on the rise over the last decade or so for dog bites. However, subjecting them to BSL would be... idiotic, right? A knee jerk reaction to a HUGE problem that can not just be fixed by banning them.
I saw this posted somewhere else and totally agree:
Why don't you just go ahead and ban all black people? After all, black people are the cause of violent crime and it's well known that having a group of black people around means that sooner or later, someone is going to get killed, because that's what they do. Black people are vicious killers and are a menace to society.
See how dumb that sounds? Now just replace black person with pit bull.
I don't particularly like Jack Russel Terriers. Most of them I meet are annoying, barky, hyper spazzes who constantly start trouble and get into fights. That's my generalization of them from all the ones I've had experienced with (and lived with). I've only met one JRT that I liked. So because I've had bad experiences with them, I'm going to support that they all be banned? No... that would be silly. |
I explained in the very post you quoted why I think it is a crock. The list is compiled by a self-proclaimed group with no credentials -- the "
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States" and they say there are two ways to get on the list: either by the breed being named or a
description fitting the breed being banned. They are using their very broad and loose interpretation of the description fitting these breeds to put them on the list. The states are not putting all of these breeds on a banned list. This group is trying to over-generalize the description so that they can say all of the breeds are banned when they know full well the intent of the law was never to ban all of them!!
Saying the list has some sort of credence because it has been repeated on several dog forums is ridiculous. That does not make it so! Your next reason for the list being true is even more inane -- just because it is NOT mentioned on SNOPES, then it must be true??? Really???? I can think of millions of things that are NOT on SNOPES, does that make them true? NO!
You say that the list means the breeds listed are banned somewhere. I say that is NOT TRUE. By their own admission, they have included dog breeds that THEY believe meet a "description" listed somewhere of dogs that are banned. In other words, in trying to further define a pit bull, authorities have included descriptions and then this group has wildly exaggerated the description to include most of the breeds
they listed on
their list. You have to be very careful when you start believing everything written on an internet site is true! If they did the actual research to show all of these breeds were really banned, don't you think they would list the law/municipality/etc. to back up their accusations? They don't list them, because they have exaggerated this article so much, that it no longer has any resemblance to the real laws on the books.
I am guessing that you are using an analogy of the Jack Russell Terrier since I own one. But your analogy is
not fitting the situation. There is a HUGE difference in a dog being annoying and a dog being a KILLER! My JRT's mouth will not open enough to be any real threat. As far as starting fights? What are you using to substantiate that accusation? I have not seen any JRTs that start fights, and have seen no statistics verifying that. For a dog lover to say to another dog lover that a breed they own are "annoying, barky, hyper spazzes" seems very insulting, disrespectful, immature, rude, and not very animal-loving at all.
I am sure you are doing it intentionally so you can say, "now you know how pit bull owners feel" but I have NOT insulted the pit bulls or any other breed. I have made it quite clear I thought MAN was the problem. So, why would you do this to me? Truthfully, I find this beneath you.
I will reiterate that the main difference is that of
fatalities! Those who do not want any bans or restrictions on pit bulls usually like to bring up another breed that has bitten ..... but it is not a simple dog bite that makes a dog a danger to humans! It is the fact that some can kill. That is my objection to continuing breeding programs for pit bulls.
They kill people! There are verifiable statistics that are legally mandated to show when human lives are taken by dogs. These are not some made up crap from a group calling itself "Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States," these are government-kept statistics which have been put in the system by doctors who are legally responsible for doing so. We do not treat assassins/murderers the same way we treat someone who got into a high school fistfight, do we? Of course not! We MUST have laws that fit the situation. We cannot have the same
penalty for a man who murders as we do that high school boy who punches his buddy. So, we cannot have the same penalty for a dog who KILLS PEOPLE as we do for one that occasionally bites someone.
Concerning the analogy of a black person.....you are right in that it does "sound dumb" but I will NOT further dignify such preposterous words with a reply! Same with the Hitler comparison. Using them to compare with the subject of spay & neutering for pit bulls is just a horrible racial insult! We are so far off track here......and that is usually what happens when there are no intelligent answers to a problem other than what the writer is against.
I am saddened that you have decided to personalize this debate. There are always going to be two sides to this topic. Each can feel strongly and relate their beliefs WITHOUT insulting one another, their dogs, or entire races! I think of you as too good of a friend to continue down this path. I know you are passionate about your stance as I am about mine. I think most who have seen the horrible disfiguring results of a pit bull attack on an innocent child feel as I do. But
let's agree to disagree, state our beliefs maturely and
leave the insults and disgusting, far-fetched comparisons behind.