MovieChat Forums > Pit Bulls and Parolees (2009) Discussion > Breed specific legislation

Breed specific legislation

posted 11 years ago by simba-18
10 replies | jump to latest

I've been hooked on this show for a week now and I can't say enough great things about what Tia and her family are doing. I am not a fan of pitbulls but I do love dogs and animals in general. A MAJOR problem in finding a home for these poor animals is Breed Specific Legislation (BSL). It is unfair and needs to be done away with. For those who don't know, BSL means laws that are passed to allow insurance companies to either fine or raise insurance rates to homeowners who own specific breeds of dogs. Other dog breeds besides pitbulls are German Shepherds; Dalmations; Malamutes; Huskies; Rotweillers; Dobermans; Boxers; Presa Canario (a giant pitbull, I think), and Chow Chows.

I am not sure if there are any states that do not have this in effect but I think it is BS. I am on a mission to get this undone if it is possible.

I haven't seen every show but I wish Tia would address this problem as well if she hasn't already.

[–] ih8tt 11 years ago

it's not only about insurance rates, some localities ban specific breeds completely, so if you own one, and there's no 'grandfathering them in,' you either have to find a new home for your pet, move, or euthanize him/her

the entire concept is ridiculous anyway, anything with a mouth and/or teeth can bite, even cats, but they aren't banned, and some breeds people wouldn't expect are high on the 'most bites' list (such as Goldens), not because they're inherently vicious, but just because so many people have them and interact with them, problems are bound to arise, so to single out a few breeds is really pointless and gives people a false sense of security about any dog who isn't on the list

and what do they do about mixed breeds? is there a 'one-drop rule'? if your dog has even one drop of pitbull blood, he's a pit and has to go?

I don't know about on this show (I've only seen a few episodes), but Shorty is very much involved in this issue on Pit Boss (another Animal Planet series showcasing pitbulls), I've even seen where he'll go and speak at meetings where they're discussing implementing such legislation

[–] avnrulz 10 years ago

Considering what Pitbulls were bred for, and the jaw strength they have, if they are mis-handled or trained to fight, they are a dangerous breed (70 were found recently, being trained for fighting, in my town), just ask Michael Vick!

BOHICA America!

[–] Elemenoh 10 years ago

The same numbers applied to Chows, Dobermans, and Rottweilers back when those were the dogfight breeders' most popular choice, too.

DOGS can be dangerous. Hell, if you have an infant, the most dangerous dog you can have is a Dachshund... Should we ban those too?

[–] shorsteinj 10 years ago

Dobermans, Chows nor Rottweilers were ever dog fighters popular choices except for amateurs at best. Real dog fighters/game doggers had no interest in any of those breeds because they lack a certain drive that pit bulls have been bred for.

As far as your comparison, you cannot compare a Dachshund to a pit bull. If Dachshunds were attacking and killing at the rate of which pit bulls are, it would be a serious problem. But they aren't. Not only that, stopping a Dachshund from attacking is far easier than trying to stop a pit bull from attacking.

[–] chas437 10 years ago

Its a complicated issue. The insurance stuff is based on hard data. The fact is that these dangerous breeds do injure, maim and kill people. So, it is a public safety issue which needs to be dealt with. People have the right to walk down the street without being mauled by dogs.

But like you say, there all sorts of mitigating factors such as mixes. To me, it boils down to behaviors of dog owners more than the dogs. The statistics point to the fact that pit bull owners tend to be lower income, less educated. But, golden retrievers and yellow labs can bite people as well.

I think a better solution would be some way of holding pit bull and other dangerous breed owners for the actions of their pets. Some have suggested dangerous breed pet owners should be mandated to purchase insurance bonds. But because pit bull owners often don't even register their dogs, its a problem. Maybe holding pit bull owners criminally responsible for attacks for their dogs would be a solution.

But, I don't think any government agency can legislate pit bulls and other breeds out of existence. That's not the right way to solve the problem.

I know pit bulls can be very good dogs, but there are a great many people who simply won't tolerate their presence. It just makes me sad for these dogs, its time society made bad dog owners accountable.

I'm a civilian, I'm not a trout

[–] softballumpire55 8 years ago

pitbull owners are less educated and less money? that not proven fact that a huge assumption dangerous bread? please a mix of yellow lab and golden killed a child.... no outrage over that cause media doesn't report everything dog bites aren't reported all the time to the people it needs to be.

people will report dangerous dog bread running the streets in new york when police arrived? the dog jump in and gave him kisses the only dangeorus part is the "assumption"

when you have people also throwing rocks and things at dog you wonder why they go after people.... Steping on dog tail i used my dog Dudley for example he a yellow lets say i step on his tail?

there three ways he can react to

1. Cry

2. bite

3. growl

He more han likey to Cry cause he knows i wouldn't hurt him. you could do the same with pitbuall one could bite other could cry or just do not mind it. every dog has a breaking point

[–] kukkzii 8 years ago

Seeing as how you cant spell or structure sentences properly I can safely assume you're not especially educated, thus proving the previous poster right. There IS a correlation between pitbulls & people living in the ghettos. Not saying all pitbull owners are criminals, uneducated and poor, but people who fit into those criterias are more likely to own a pitbull than others. It's just the same as not all pitbulls are killers, but considering they were actually BRED for fighting, it's not very suprising they are responsible for the majority of dog attacks/fatalities.

Not saying pitbulls should be banned, but I definitely think there should be certain criterias a pitbull owner should fulfill before he/she gets to own one. Same should apply to gun owners. Not all gunowners are killers, but if someone unstable gets a hold of a gun, or a pitbull for that matter, bad things can happen, and we should be doing everything we can to prevent that, dont you agree?

[–] Silver_Bullets 8 years ago

Seeing as how you cant spell or structure sentences properly I can safely assume you're not especially educated, thus proving the previous poster right.

That was uncalled for. What are you? The grammar police? For all we know the poster may speak and write in English as a second language. Cut them some slack. Not agreeing with someone is one thing but there's no need to be insulting.

And BTW there's an apostrophe in the word can't .

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2013/09/language_bullies_pedants_and_grammar_nerds_who_correct_people_all_the_time.html

[–] sd619rules 8 years ago

There IS a correlation between pitbulls & people living in the ghettos.

LOL, please post your data/support for this lie. TY!

[–] sd619rules 8 years ago

BSL has been TERMINATED at the state level in every single state in America. Ohio was the FIRST state to enact BSL in 1988, and it was the LAST state to repeal their BSL law in 2002 with House Bill 14.
In addition 15 states BAN the state and all subdivisions from implementing BSL at the local level, like CA.

BSL has been thoroughly discredited.