How to best counter BSL

[Zoom]

Few of us are strangers to the idiocy that is BSL, nor the current favor that blanket bans are enjoying. This thread spawned off of the Pit Education as an excerise in how to come up with intelligent ideas to feed to various city councils/media outlets so that more options are presented than the now-tired line of "Blame the deed, not the breed". Not that I disagree with that statement, but I know those around my city who are pushing for the bans are tired of hearing it, and thus it has lost much of it's power.

So starting from the present situation, let's just take my city: Numerous attacks have happened over the past four or five months, resulting in a huge movement to ban all pits and pit-type dogs (to which the general public likes to include mastiffs, boxers, lab mixes, etc). We already know there are idiot owners, what do we do now?

 

[bluezano]

I too would be interested in getting some ideas on how to combat breed banning legislation.

It looks like our town will be implementing a pit bull ban shortly, following the lead of two other towns across the river from us. The ban will be as follows:
No new pit bulls allowed in the county. For those people already owning pit bulls they must pay a $500 a year licensing fee, have proof of a hefty amount of insurance, and the dog can never be off leash.

What are some good arguments to the above proposed legislation?

 

[LinkLinx]

I think people should have to have a lot more to own dogs. The law implements the bare minimum of everything, and the bare minimum really isn't enough by an ethical viewpoint. And ethics need to be taken more into account when it comes to live animals as well. I don't care if a law says they are property, but they need certain things to be kept safe and comfortable, and to be able to interact with people.

Why shouldn't people be required to go through socialization with their dogs? I think it should be mandatory regardless of breed. And if someone doesn't have the time for a few classes, they don't have time for a dog either.

There's so many ways to prevent BSL, it's just the process of getting people to do it.

 

[casablanca1]

I'm on the fence about BSL because while I don't believe that any breed is simply evil, I also don't believe that the US is very good at dealing with dog issues. In a system where owners are rarely held accountable for even gross acts of violence by their dogs, and where Pekes and Dogos are held to the same standard of behavior, BSL will always be a proposal of people frustrated with the inevitable result - badly handled large breeds that maim and kill.

I have 2 suggestions.

1) a recognition (in many cases, it would amount to an admission) that a Rottweiler is not a Yorkie. Too many dog people are trying to sell a product that common sense refutes when they go on about a Cairn that killed a baby or a Chihuahua pack eating an elderly invalid. That's like saying that cyclists can kill people too, if they hit them at high speeds, so why should cars be regulated?

2) Serious licensing requirements for dogs of breeds/types in the top 20 for serious dog attacks, and serious investigations by police into incidents of aggression toward humans or other dogs by these dogs. Basically, it would be a limited form of BSL - the dogs wouldn't be banned, but the law would get greater power to limit their ownership through initial licensing and subsquent behavior. Yes, I know the very worst owners wouldn't cooperate with licensing, etc., but it would at least check the middle group, the generally law-abiding idiots who acquire a Rottweiler because they're 'tough' and then don't bother to train it, and it would give people some ground to make complaints against a dog's owner. That process, at the moment, is incredibly frustrating, grounded as dog ownership is in the American concept that property is sacred, even if that property has legs, teeth and a habit of biting.

Good luck with all that

 

[short1216]

It's a very tough call all the way around. I dont think bsl is the answer. "Bad" people will always want to own "mean" dogs, even if they are obtained or kept illegally. Banning the breed only makes it that much more inticing to the people that shouldn't own them to begin with. The thing about bsl is that in the end, I believe that it ends up punishing responsible owners more than irresponsible ones. I have no idea how to solve the problem as a whole but I do have two thoughts:

1. I think there should be much, much more harsh penalties for people who commit crimes on animals, I think that current penalties leave way too much room for repeat offenses.

2. I don't think anyone should just be handed a dog license. I think it should be mandatory to have to go through class, almost like a certification process, to own a dog. Even if you have had dogs your whole life, there's nothing wrong with expanding your knowledge.

Neither suggestion solves the problem but it's a starting point...

 

[squirtsmom]

I'm on the fence about BSL because while I don't believe that any breed is simply evil, I also don't believe that the US is very good at dealing with dog issues. In a system where owners are rarely held accountable for even gross acts of violence by their dogs, and where Pekes and Dogos are held to the same standard of behavior, BSL will always be a proposal of people frustrated with the inevitable result - badly handled large breeds that maim and kill.

I have 2 suggestions.

1) a recognition (in many cases, it would amount to an admission) that a Rottweiler is not a Yorkie. Too many dog people are trying to sell a product that common sense refutes when they go on about a Cairn that killed a baby or a Chihuahua pack eating an elderly invalid. That's like saying that cyclists can kill people too, if they hit them at high speeds, so why should cars be regulated?

2) Serious licensing requirements for dogs of breeds/types in the top 20 for serious dog attacks, and serious investigations by police into incidents of aggression toward humans or other dogs by these dogs. Basically, it would be a limited form of BSL - the dogs wouldn't be banned, but the law would get greater power to limit their ownership through initial licensing and subsquent behavior. Yes, I know the very worst owners wouldn't cooperate with licensing, etc., but it would at least check the middle group, the generally law-abiding idiots who acquire a Rottweiler because they're 'tough' and then don't bother to train it, and it would give people some ground to make complaints against a dog's owner. That process, at the moment, is incredibly frustrating, grounded as dog ownership is in the American concept that property is sacred, even if that property has legs, teeth and a habit of biting.

Good luck with all that

I have a pitbull, but the only dog I have been bitten by, was a Peke. All dogs have their moments.

 

[elegy]

2) Serious licensing requirements for dogs of breeds/types in the top 20 for serious dog attacks, and serious investigations by police into incidents of aggression toward humans or other dogs by these dogs.

the top 20 breeds? we're going to restrict mutts? and labs? (i'm going strictly by dog bite fatality numbers here)

i'd love love LOVE to see somebody try to pass that law. that's one big way to get the attention of those who are oblivious to the dangers of BSL to good dogs and responsible dog owners.

BSL does not work. BSL is extremely difficult and EXPENSIVE to to enforce.

http://www.hugabull.com/bsl.html