Letters to the Editor
-
Facts, wedeman. Facts count.
For instance you say: "breed of dog that was specifically bred for no other purpose than to be aggressive," but that was hundred of years ago. Now, most pits are bred as pets and for show and fancy. Dogfighting is already illegal.
People do not understand how dogs are different than wolves. Wolves evolved. Many centuries of evolution. That is why their do not make good pets.
Dogs are bred. When a breeder breeds for specific traits, he/she can breed out many problems within a few generations. If you gave me two fighting pits, I could probably (with a bit of temperament testing and research) breed out the dogfighting behavior.
I once had a herd of goats. They were cream, tan, brown, black, white, and black and white. For fun, I decided to see how long it would take me to produce parti-colored blank and white goats. By selling off most of the brown and some of the solid black ones, there was scarcely any goat on the place that was not black and white. I kept only the black and whites as billies.
It is not the registered breed that is the problem. It is not the responsible breeders. It is indeed irresponsible people who are the problem.
Really, I honestly think that you want to stick to your POV without really considering or understanding either dogs or breeding.
To be blunt, you really cannot win this argument against more knowledgeable people. Sorry to sound like a snob, but there you have it.
-
@ akasmith
I think you're missing the point - I don't believe opinionated is referring to civil liability. At any rate, I certainly am not. The point is criminal liability. That neatly takes care of your concern of being judgment-proof. And drives home the point that, if you want to own a breed that is known to be dangerous - whether is a staffordshire terrier, an american pit-bull terrier, an akita, a husky, whatever - then you agree to take automatic liability if that dog attacks someone in an unprovoked manner. (And the same would go for civil liability for attacks on other animals; of course, then you have the judgment-proof issue, but it's a start.)
And it is easy to categorize a breed as "known to be dangerous" - those breeds with the highest rates of attacks coupled with the damage they do. This shoud take care of those breeds that may bite, but don't rend a person limb from limb, or take off a child's face.
Or is your point that there are no breeds that could be deemed dangerous? (It's just the owners who are dangerous?) I'm really tired of people automatically responding - when confronted with someone saying that pits are more dangerous than other breeds - that, "hey! chiuhuahuas bite more than any other breed!" Come on. They may bite, as may many other breeds, but the fact (yes FACT) is that such breeds simply do not - nay, cannot - do the damge that pits can do. Indeed, were bred over time to do.
And notice I mention "unprovoked." Of course if one's dog is provoked, or is protecting a family member or house, etc., then it wouldn't apply. And the idea of strict liability is not foreign in the practice of law. Indeed, there are areas that already have statutes on the books regarding strict liability in the keeping of non-domesticated animals should they attack a person. You should also realize such laws are just that: strict liability. It matters little whether the animal in question was provoked or not.
Finally, I also think the constant refrain from defenders of the breed such as yourself that the current bias, outrage, or focus on pits and related breeds is just "hysteria" is ridiculous. My understanding is that "hysteria" involves overexagerration, overdramatic, etc. (I'm not speaking as to an actual clinical diagnosis for a person, but as the term is used by a layperson, and I as understand people in this thread to be using it.) With that in mind, categorizing reaction to an incident like the one involving the sleeping disabled woman, or the incident in San Francisco touched on by some posters here, or any of the incidents involving these breeds in the past years as "hysteria," is I think, frankly, a misapplication of the word. Hysteria implies no basis in reality, disconnected from reality - I think we can all agree that the recent attack discussed here was grounded all too well in reality.
-
Criminal liability
AKASmith-
I am talking about lowering the threshold for an owner's criminal liability for his dog, so obviously I am talking about the court system.
You said, "For dogs under a year, it is impossible to know what their temperament will turn out to be."
I say, "Tough." You chose to get the dog. You're responsible for its actions from the moment you acquire it. If your a 10-month-old dog mauls a baby to death, you get tried for manslaughter or murder 2.
And if your dog attacks someone who comes into your yard this should fall under exactly the same laws that prevent you from booby-trapping your house. If the next door neighbor kid comes into your yard to collect the ball that got tossed over the fence and gets mauled - you're criminally liable.
If your dog mauls the postman- you're criminally liable. If someone opens your gate and lets your dog out - you're criminally liable.
The bottom line is that if you choose to have a dangerous dog (defined as any dog capable of inflicting serious injury) of any breed, then you should be responsible for anything that dog does.
And finally, I am not talking about "judgments" and civil liability (money). I am talking about criminal liability and throwing dog owners in jail. No more of this bullshit, "I had no idea Fluffy would do that."
-
65% of deaths, and 68% of the maimings
About every 7 or 8 pages, someone brings up the fact that 65% of deaths, and 68% of the maimings in the US are caused by pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes.
It never gets responded to. Frankly, I can see why.
Give that description the widest possible definition you can-- are any of the apologists here seriously arguing that pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes compose two-thirds of the dog population? If not, than you are conceding that these breeds cause an inordinate amount of damage to human flesh.
Perhaps we should all be concerned about that.
Please spare me the stories about how wonderful your pit bull is. NOT ONE PERSON in this entire 40+ page thread has disputed that many of these dogs can be wonderful pets.
The ultimate point is that virtually everything that is dangerous is regulated in one way or another-- cars, guns, drugs, fireworks, motorcycles. Despite the fact that each one of these things is pretty safe when handled properly, municipalities and society in general have made the common sense decision that a little regulation is in order-- because, strangely, not every person in this country turns out to be responsible enough with dangerous things.
Not one person has given me a good reason why pit bulls should be given an exception to common sense.