Pitbulls banned in Denver

[Keanumoreira]

News News:

 

Well, the ban on pitbulls has been lifted, but only for service purposes. Non-service pitbulls must be removed from the city or the dogs will be killed. Also, the officals issued this ban because they believe gang culture with pitbulls is an excuse good enough to justify this ban.

 

Gang culture? Really?

 

Yep, and I'm disgusted.

[kvnchrist]

News News:

 

Well, the ban on pitbulls has been lifted, but only for service purposes. Non-service pitbulls must be removed from the city or the dogs will be killed. Also, the officals issued this ban because they believe gang culture with pitbulls is an excuse good enough to justify this ban.

 

Gang culture? Really?

 

Yep, and I'm disgusted.

 

Where's the ACLU on this one. It is defiantly a targeted bill

[Keanumoreira]

Here's proof if anyone wants it: My link

[Balagor]

My neighbour has a Pittbull, a so called "killerdog". He always fall asleep when we talk, lol :biggrin: . (the dog, not my neighbour)

No, I say bann those people who don´t know how to treat a dog (or other beings )

[Maigrets]

If you think banning Pit Bulls is ridiculous imagine how owners of Maltese Terriers feel in this country. :rolleyes:

 

They've been declared a "dangerous and menacing" dog along with the Chihuahua. I agree they are yappy and can be really annoying, but as everyone is saying it's the owners who need controlling before the dogs. Being so small (and sharp at one end ;D ) does pose a danger to small children when these so called toy dogs are not controlled properly though.

 

Small toy dogs being made a fashion statement, carried around in a handbag and likened to disposable toys by certain celebrities doesn't help matters either. They need socializing not Gucci. :whistling:

 

Every time there's a dog attack there's a hue and cry and lobby groups call for bans are other stupid restrictions. Even the beautiful Dalmatian, Rough Collie (Lassie), German Shepherd and Australian Cattle Dog are on the list of dangerous dogs because at some time one has bitten a human or shown aggression.

 

My dog is half Aussie Cattle dog and half Aussie Kelpie and you couldn't ask for a more loving and smart companion dog. Cattle dogs are trained to nip the heels of cattle to move them along when herding and it's also a trait they inherit, but it's easy enough to train them out of it with care.

 

I've never seen a real Pit Bull except on TV or in pictures, but if they are anything like Rottweilers and Dobermans, which I have been around and are beautiful animals, they would be very loving and loyal dogs. In the right hands.

 

I've had the pleasure to own or associate with dogs that are smarter and have more common sense than some people I've met. :) It's the morons of the world who make it difficult for the rest of us, and it seems the ones the Govt and other authorities listen to for reasons I have yet to fathom.

[HeyYou]

I've had the pleasure to own or associate with dogs that are smarter and have more common sense than some people I've met. :) It's the morons of the world who make it difficult for the rest of us, and it seems the ones the Govt and other authorities listen to for reasons I have yet to fathom.

 

Thank You Maigrets. That one gave me a chuckle this morning. I find it unfortunate that it falls directly into the "Sad, but True" category. :D I think part of the problem is, once elected, authorities also become Morons. My puppy is more intelligent than most politicians...... Or, am I just jaded?

[draconix]

Well... Dogs were bred from wolves, so there is truth in the statement that dogs can be naturally aggressive. However, I don't think any one breed is more inclined than another to be aggressive, but I can imagine that some breeds of dogs are a hell of a lot more dangerous when they are aggressive. Does that mean that all dogs of a certain breed should be banned? Hell no, that's ridiculous. However maybe it would be a good idea for certain breeds to require the owner to have a license to own a breed of dogs that can be dangerous when aggressive, followed with examinations of the dogs of this sort at least every 2 years in order to ensure that the dog is of good temperament. If it's not, the owner could be fined.

 

That's just an idea that I came up with in a few minutes, and it's better than banning and killing entire breeds of dogs, who are referred to by many people as "members of their family." I would hope that a room full of legislators could do better. Of course, they can't. :wallbash: Then again, people who drive vehicles are required to have a license too, but all things considered, it hasn't been all that effective at keeping bad drivers off the road but it's at least a step in the right direction, rather than banning cars. :rolleyes:

Edited July 27, 2011 by draconix

[Aurielius]

@Maigrets

If the laws in your sector of Australia are so restrictive with standard breeds what is their application and attitude to Dingo's?

[Keanumoreira]

Well... Dogs were bred from wolves, so there is truth in the statement that dogs can be naturally aggressive. However, I don't think any one breed is more inclined than another to be aggressive, but I can imagine that some breeds of dogs are a hell of a lot more dangerous when they are aggressive. Does that mean that all dogs of a certain breed should be banned? Hell no, that's ridiculous. However maybe it would be a good idea for certain breeds to require the owner to have a license to own a breed of dogs that can be dangerous when aggressive, followed with examinations of the dogs of this sort at least every 2 years in order to ensure that the dog is of good temperament. If it's not, the owner could be fined.

 

That's just an idea that I came up with in a few minutes, and it's better than banning and killing entire breeds of dogs, who are referred to by many people as "members of their family." I would hope that a room full of legislators could do better. Of course, they can't. :wallbash: Then again, people who drive vehicles are required to have a license too, but all things considered, it hasn't been all that effective at keeping bad drivers off the road but it's at least a step in the right direction, rather than banning cars. :rolleyes:

 

I agree with this statement, because some owners are not fit to own animals in a responsible respect. However, this needs to be done cautiously and with responsibility because for one, what do we do with the shelters full of suffering animals we have now? Imagine adding millions more to these already overflowing facilities. This idea is an excellent way to control animal aggression brought on by owner ignorance, negligence, and irresponsibilty, but at the sametime, what measures do we have to take to ensure we don't bring more harm than help? We also have to bring to mind that we may have to sacrifice to reach that goal we strive for. It's a sad and unfortunate thing to consider, but sometimes we have to if we want to save more lives in the future.

[HeyYou]

Well... Dogs were bred from wolves, so there is truth in the statement that dogs can be naturally aggressive. However, I don't think any one breed is more inclined than another to be aggressive, but I can imagine that some breeds of dogs are a hell of a lot more dangerous when they are aggressive. Does that mean that all dogs of a certain breed should be banned? Hell no, that's ridiculous. However maybe it would be a good idea for certain breeds to require the owner to have a license to own a breed of dogs that can be dangerous when aggressive, followed with examinations of the dogs of this sort at least every 2 years in order to ensure that the dog is of good temperament. If it's not, the owner could be fined.

 

That's just an idea that I came up with in a few minutes, and it's better than banning and killing entire breeds of dogs, who are referred to by many people as "members of their family." I would hope that a room full of legislators could do better. Of course, they can't. :wallbash: Then again, people who drive vehicles are required to have a license too, but all things considered, it hasn't been all that effective at keeping bad drivers off the road but it's at least a step in the right direction, rather than banning cars. :rolleyes:

 

I agree with this statement, because some owners are not fit to own animals in a responsible respect. However, this needs to be done cautiously and with responsibility because for one, what do we do with the shelters full of suffering animals we have now? Imagine adding millions more to these already overflowing facilities. This idea is an excellent way to control animal aggression brought on by owner ignorance, negligence, and irresponsibilty, but at the sametime, what measures do we have to take to ensure we don't bring more harm than help? We also have to bring to mind that we may have to sacrifice to reach that goal we strive for. It's a sad and unfortunate thing to consider, but sometimes we have to if we want to save more lives in the future.

 

You think we should euthanize the irresponsible owners? Yeah, that works. :D