| Register  | FAQ  | Search | Login 
It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:28 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Maryland - Pit Bulls considered 'dangerous' (court rulin
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 10:30 am 
Invented Vegan Meringue
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:46 pm
Posts: 3832
Location: 5 mi east of philly
i don't think there should be laws that pertain to one breed. it should be across the board, and even then, not a law.
it should financially behoove a dog guardian to get their pet sterilized. my town mildly does that. a dog license for a year is $5, and for an unsterilized dog is $8. i would like that to be $5 (or $2) for sterilized and $50 or maybe $100 for unsterilized dogs. the town will get an extra financial boost from those who refuse to sterilize their dogs, and if the town finds out they've lied or not registered their dogs, a huge fine should be incurred.

(p.s. dogs can't sue or revolt if they're sterilized against their will. humans are overpopulated too, but sterilizing them against their will has bigger consequences. death is death. sterilizing dogs until there is no more death by the hands of humans is the way to go. there are plenty of humans who would want to be sterilized, but don't have access to it. humans can talk to us, dogs can't. we're not stewards of other humans, but we are stewards of dogs.)

_________________
I solved it for once and for all -- and for everyone -- by intentionally leaving behind some 9-lives burritos... ~Lorelei4mc
supercarrot.com, vegan groupony things, vegan coupons


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: Maryland - Pit Bulls considered 'dangerous' (court rulin
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 1:01 pm 
Top of the food chain & doesn't need to prove it
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 1:27 am
Posts: 633
Location: Southern Maryland
ASPCA has a campaign going to get letters to the legislature at least for MD residents: http://capwiz.com/aspca/issues/alert/?alertid=61310446

_________________
Imma let you finish, but the Paranthropus Boisei were the greatest vegans ever.

Ugh I saw all these cave paintings complaining about vegan cheese options. I don't miss those days. -Isa


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Maryland - Pit Bulls considered 'dangerous' (court rulin
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 1:43 pm 
Dead by dawn
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:54 pm
Posts: 7452
Location: Seattle
supercarrot wrote:
i don't think there should be laws that pertain to one breed. it should be across the board, and even then, not a law.
it should financially behoove a dog guardian to get their pet sterilized. my town mildly does that. a dog license for a year is $5, and for an unsterilized dog is $8. i would like that to be $5 (or $2) for sterilized and $50 or maybe $100 for unsterilized dogs. the town will get an extra financial boost from those who refuse to sterilize their dogs, and if the town finds out they've lied or not registered their dogs, a huge fine should be incurred.

Here the difference in cost to register a fixed dog vs and intact one is pretty significant. But I suspect that the individuals who get pit bulls to make themselves seem all macho and who drag their dogs around on chains and encourage aggressive behavior (and don't fix their dogs) are the same ones who don't give a rip about how much registration costs because they're not registering their animals to begin with.

_________________
facebook
"The PPK: Come for the pie; stay for the croissants." - tinglepants!
"Cockblocked by Richard Branson- again!" - Erika Soyf*cker


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Maryland - Pit Bulls considered 'dangerous' (court rulin
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:05 pm 
Trapped On A Desert Island With A Cow
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:16 am
Posts: 457
alden wrote:
Reading your blog I have a few questions/comments that I'll throw into a spoiler as well since I haven't used that before and feel like it would be fantastic:

Spoiler: show
1. You seem to touch on the fact that identification is highly subjective but then never really come up with a solution to that problem. BSL is dependent on said breed being identified as a problem. If I said all Hungarians were dangerous people because I had misidentified a dozen people of various geographic backgrounds who committed violent acts my conclusion would be useless. Until breeds can actually be clearly identified then the basis of BSL is completely foolish at best.

2. BSL seems to consist of bans, there are very few BSL related laws that do anything short of banning possession of the animals so when you mention MSN are you suggesting that BSL should be for all intents and purposes redefined to allow possession of the animals but only in cases where they are not intact (or insert other circumstances - certain minimum acreage, no chains, or whatever the causation theory of the day might be)?

3. I completely agree that breeding is at the core of the issue.


Quote:
but then never really come up with a solution to that problem.

I don't really have a solution, though I'm unconvinced the magnitude of problem or that it is insurmountable given the number of communities with operating BSL. I think its a complicating factor but not necessarily prohibitive. Many of the arguments based on the subjectivity of breed identification use the example of a single breed ban, when my research indicates that the greatest risk is clustered in groups of breeds bred for similar activities. One example of the overstatment of the subjectivity of breed identification is the deceptive "Find the Pit Bull" test

Spoiler: show
Image
Quote:
Key: 1. Boxer 2. Dogue de Bordeaux 3. Alapaha Blue Bull Dog 4. Great Swiss Mountain Dog 5. Vizsla 6. Rhodesian Ridgeback 7. Dogo Argentino 8. Chocolate Labrador Retriever 9. Bullmastiff 10. Jack Russell Terrier 11. Fila Brasileiro 12. Rottweiler 13. Presa Canario 14. American Bulldog 15. Cane Corso 16. American Pit Bull Terrier 17. Patterdale Terrier 18. Olde English Bulldogge 19. Catahoula 20. Bull Terrier 21. Black Mouth Cur 22. Alano Espanol 23. Boerboel 24. Ca de Bou 25. Thai Ridgeback

The "Find the Pit Bull" test pretends to show us that pit bulls are virtually impossible to distinguish from other breeds. The test is intended to deceive. In short, the creator uses scarce to rare breeds that are related to the pit bull's ancestry, juvenile dogs or dogs that are atypical of the breed and pretends that using one photo is the same as seeing the actual dog. The pit bull they use as an example of a typical pit bull is a puppy, for crying out loud!
The long answer:
To trick the viewer, the creator uses the following techniques:
A. Uses photos that do not show relative size.
B. Uses photos that do not show the whole dog when body type is much different than a bully breed.
C. Uses photos of juvenile dogs that have not developed their breed specific characteristics or size.
D. Uses photos of dog breeds that are rare to non-existant in the United States making it very unlikely that the general public or animal control officers have encountered or ever will encounter these breeds
E. Inclusion of many examples of similar dogs of three breed types that are known to have been used to develop the pit bull - terriers, bulldogs and mastiffs. The last two are also themselves closely related to each other.
F. Uses photos that show an atypical or less common type of a breed.
G. Uses poor photos that don't show distinguishing characteristics of the breed or that create the illusion the breed has pit bull characteristics.

The question is: Can Animal Control Officers distinguish the breeds in the photos if presented with the actual dogs?


Quote:
BSL seems to consist of bans, there are very few BSL related laws that do anything short of banning possession of the animals so when you mention MSN are you suggesting that BSL should be for all intents and purposes redefined to allow possession of the animals but only in cases where they are not intact (or insert other circumstances - certain minimum acreage, no chains, or whatever the causation theory of the day might be)?


BSL take many forms,
Quote:
One of the issues when talking about BSL is vagueness, the term “breed specific legislation” covers a variety of laws, anywhere from restricting felons from having certain breeds, mandatory spay/neuter, micro-chipping, insurance requirements, handling requirements, to outright breed bans...

in my post I conclude,
Spoiler: show
Quote:
There does not seem to be adequate evidence to support breed bans at this time*, however some forms of breed specific legislation may be appropriate for some communities to consider based on their individual needs and resources. I feel that the focus of many pro-pit bull activist on stopping BSL is a misuse of energy and misses the heart of the issue, breeding. Public education campaigns on responsible dog care along with spay and neuter campaigns are also vital to promoting canine and human health. I would like to see advocates on both sides tone down the sensationalist rhetoric, take some time to look at the other side, and engage in a civil debate. Be careful what slogans you repeat, perpetuating falsehoods muddles up the public dialog and may actually serve the purposes of dog fighters and breeders. I would also advise pit bull advocates to be careful who they associate with or donate to, not every self proclaimed pit bull lover is actually out to help the dogs. Most of all be realistic and be a responsible caretaker, take proper precautions with your dog and around others, failure to do so can result in tragedy.
*an exception to this may be Wolfdogs, but they are not the focus of this post



so basically I'm against outright breed bans but am willing to support "soft" BSL in the form of mandatory MSN, differential licensing, regulations regarding issue of control such as enclosures, leashes, ect. Most of all I want to see strong anti-breeding law along with swifter and harsher punishment of dogfighting and related activities.

Quote:
I completely agree that breeding is at the core of the issue.


THIS
and its why Im quite concerned that so many pit bull advocacy groups do not condemn breeding and sometimes even come out in support of the "right" to breed and sell puppies,...but only in a responsible manner you know...

_________________
No gods, no masters, no woo, no whey!
Be skeptical not susceptible!
http://skepticalvegan.wordpress.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Maryland - Pit Bulls considered 'dangerous' (court rulin
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 6:09 pm 
Queen Bitch of Self-Righteous Veganville
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 2:21 pm
Posts: 9598
Location: Illinoize
monkeytoes wrote:
supercarrot wrote:
i don't think there should be laws that pertain to one breed. it should be across the board, and even then, not a law.
it should financially behoove a dog guardian to get their pet sterilized. my town mildly does that. a dog license for a year is $5, and for an unsterilized dog is $8. i would like that to be $5 (or $2) for sterilized and $50 or maybe $100 for unsterilized dogs. the town will get an extra financial boost from those who refuse to sterilize their dogs, and if the town finds out they've lied or not registered their dogs, a huge fine should be incurred.

Here the difference in cost to register a fixed dog vs and intact one is pretty significant. But I suspect that the individuals who get pit bulls to make themselves seem all macho and who drag their dogs around on chains and encourage aggressive behavior (and don't fix their dogs) are the same ones who don't give a rip about how much registration costs because they're not registering their animals to begin with.


True true. I don't think we have that here and I wish we did, the fine people pay for an unaltered pet could go towards low cost spay/neuter programs so people who say they can't afford to get their dog fixed, can, and avoid being punished.

Registering Chester in Illinois honestly didn't occur to me until we went to adopt Fawkes, and I read on the adoption form that any dogs in the house had to be registered. So I called my vet about getting that done, and they had to get his Kentucky registration for my other vet and they really busted their asparagi to get it done for me ASAP so I could take a dog home that day. And when I went to pick the papers up, the technician on duty was like, "I can't believe you've been coming here for two years and no one has ever mentioned registering your dog to you, especially since you brought him from another state."

Also, now there's a law that all cats must be registered even if they're indoor, but i'm pretty sure that's so they can hold strays that aren't registered/microchipped for a shorter amount of time before they put them down.

_________________
"The Tree is His Penis"

The tree is his penis // it's very exciting // when held up to his mouth // the lights are all lighting // his eyes start a-bulging // in unbridled glee // the tree is his penis // its beauty, effulgent -amandabear


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: Maryland - Pit Bulls considered 'dangerous' (court rulin
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 9:38 pm 
Angrily Posting on Facebook
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:30 pm
Posts: 3150
Location: Almost Boston
monkeytoes wrote:
supercarrot wrote:
i don't think there should be laws that pertain to one breed. it should be across the board, and even then, not a law.
it should financially behoove a dog guardian to get their pet sterilized. my town mildly does that. a dog license for a year is $5, and for an unsterilized dog is $8. i would like that to be $5 (or $2) for sterilized and $50 or maybe $100 for unsterilized dogs. the town will get an extra financial boost from those who refuse to sterilize their dogs, and if the town finds out they've lied or not registered their dogs, a huge fine should be incurred.

Here the difference in cost to register a fixed dog vs and intact one is pretty significant. But I suspect that the individuals who get pit bulls to make themselves seem all macho and who drag their dogs around on chains and encourage aggressive behavior (and don't fix their dogs) are the same ones who don't give a rip about how much registration costs because they're not registering their animals to begin with.

This is absolutely true. The people who do get their dogs licensed of their own volition are usually the responsible people who already have their dogs spayed. These are also the people who would comply with mandatory spay/neuter or leash laws. The idiots who have untrained, intact, problem dogs ignore the laws. And the big problem is that unless animal control get complaints about these dogs, there is no way to force the people to comply, because a.c. don't have any idea the dogs exist! It is estimated that there are 1500 unlicensed dogs in my (relatively small) town. But what can we do? We send notices to all houses that dogs must be licensed yearly, but we don't know which households own dogs. Even if we know a dog is in violation, all we can do is send a small citation with a fine. Many times, people ignore the citations. The police dept doesn't want to bother taking every single person with an unpayed $35 fine to court (court means the animal control officer is gone for the day, so it uses up time and resources).

There are a few towns/counties around the US who have enacted mandatory spay/neuter for pit bulls, and have found that it increases euthanasia rates. If a pit gets picked up by a.c. and the owner has to agree to and pay for the dog being spayed/neutered before getting it back, than many owners decide to just abandon their dogs there. The shelters fill up and pits are very difficult to adopt out, so many have to be killed. And the idiots whose dogs don't get picked up running loose still have intact dogs that they're breeding. So I really don't know what a good solution would be, beyond education. Get in the schools and start educating these kids on humane care of dogs, spay/neuter, anti-dogfighting, etc. when they're in kindergarten, all the way up through high school. I feel like trying to deal with people when they are already adults with these attitudes of "I'm going to do what I want with my dog" is like trying to fix a severed artery by putting neosporin on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Maryland - Pit Bulls considered 'dangerous' (court rulin
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:36 am 
Top of the food chain & doesn't need to prove it
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 1:27 am
Posts: 633
Location: Southern Maryland
Maryland pit bull task force finds consensus for strict liability for dog owners

a few exerpts:

Quote:
Today the task force heard from panels of over 25 witnesses who represented a wide range of concerns ranging from the family and lawyer of dog bite victim Dominic Solesky to policy analysts and representatives from insurance, property-owner, legal, animal worker, and animal welfare associations. Despite their divergent interests and perspectives, the witnesses generally seemed in consensus on one point--that it is time for Maryland to consider adopting a strict liability rule for all dog owners...Strict liability rules--making dog owners liable when their dogs bite simply on the basis that they own the dogs--exist in 32 states, and cover all dogs without specifying any dog breeds...


Quote:
Animal welfare groups and the American Veterinary Medical Association were generally in consensus against the ruling and in support of Meinzer's suggestions with the exception of PETA, represented by Teresa Chagrin, who is well known in the animal welfare community for her controversial positions on pit bulls. The only other individuals who testified in support of the breed-specific aspects of the legislation were the parents and legal counsel of the case's victim, Dominic Solesky.


I'm totally shocked PETA is doing something I dislike....oh wait.

Quote:
Prince George's County's Animal Management Division Chief Rodney Taylor's testimony was particularly compelling considering the county has had a ban against pit bulls in effect since 1997. He shared that the most difficult thing for him and his staff is to have to "go into a home and take a dog peacefully sitting with a family watching TV" with no history of violence just because it looked like a pit bull. He said even after 30 years in the field, there is no real standard to define or judge if a dog is a pit bull or not. All he and his staff can do is try to look at the physical characteristics of a dog's jaw, head, and build to try to determine if it is a pit bull. He added that it was virtually impossible to identify how much of the dog is pit bull in a pit bull mix.

While two formal reviews of the Prince Georges County ban have recommended repealing it due to the high cost and lack of improvement in public safety, the two attempts to repeal it were unsuccessful. Taylor concluded by saying a strong spay/neuter program and promoting responsible pet ownership were key. "Love your pet, spay/neuter, make it a house pet, take it off its chain and bring it inside. Get away from the issue of breeds--that's not the answer!" Taylor exclaimed to a spontaneous round of applause and cheers from audience members.


There is hope for humanity, I want to give this man a hug.

_________________
Imma let you finish, but the Paranthropus Boisei were the greatest vegans ever.

Ugh I saw all these cave paintings complaining about vegan cheese options. I don't miss those days. -Isa


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Template made by DEVPPL/ThatBigForum and fancied up by What Cheer