A brief preamble. My other blog is concerned (mostly) with the defense of gun ownership and the Second Amendment. I have often argued that it isn't "the gun" that is bad but rather it is the person who misuses the firearm. A gun is a gun and just because you label it an "assault weapon" has nothing to do with how it functions other than in the hands of a criminal.
As others and myself have reported here, some misguided towns and cities have taken to "banning" the ownership of certain breeds of dogs. Now it's happening again in Seward City, Nebraska. From the Seward County Independent:
The Seward City Council reviewed a rough draft of an ordinance banning certain breeds of dog within the city limits.At the Sept. 7 meeting, the council discussed bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and Rottweilers, all of which would not be allowed within the city limits if the ordinance is adopted.
Any of the aforementioned breeds already licensed in the city would be grandfathered in.
After discussion, the council asked the city attorney to add sections related to crossbreeds of the banned dogs and offspring of dogs grandfathered in. In addition, he was asked to include the original sections about license fees for neutered male dogs.
In previous meetings, council members had discussed changing the fines for dogs at large but decided to keep the fines the same.
I'm sure if you asked my blogson Eric Scheie about his pit bull Puff, he'd gladly tell you that he's a big sweety-pie.
Getting back to my "gun analogy" for a moment, the way to stop crime and violence is not to ban some guns but to ban some gun owners -- that is, to enforce the misuse, the criminal use of guns, and when someone does break the law re a firearm, to come down on them like a ton-of-bricks.
And here is where I really think the Seward City Council shows it is wrong: Read the last part of that quote above. After debating and drafting an ordinance to ban certain dog breeds, they then decided to leave the fines for allowing a dog to run loose the same. In essence they are saying that it's okay to NOT control your animal as long as it is the right kind of animal. Well, we're not talking cats or hamsters here, we're talking dogs.
And my concern isn't just that the dog might be dangerous but that that dog is also in danger if it suddenly runs out into the street and is hit by a car.
Back to the gun: Owning a firearm is a responsibility not to be taking lightly. If I were to leave a rifle out on my porch, unsupervised, I would be negligent in my responsibility to control that gun.
That's how it is with a dog. If I don't have a properly fenced yard and I allow my dog to roam free, well, incidents can happen. But the Seward City Council has decided that it isn't the unsupervised firearm, just the type. And it isn't the loose pooch, it's what breed he is.
That is just plain wrong.
Something similar is happening in Charlotte. The mother of a child who was killed by his father's pit bulls in his own back yard is pushing breed-specific legislation. Of course that's only part of the story...the father had trained the pit bulls to be aggressive to protect his drug stash which was discovered after the death when the house was searched. I feel the mother is liable as well if she knew of the drug activity, however it's just easier to blame the dogs, right?
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/9605485.htm?1c
Some breeds are innately more assertive, more independent, and thus more difficult to handle by someone who doesn't know what the hell they're doing. They have to be, or else they couldn't do the job they were bred for, often guarding. Of course, guns are designed to kill and that fact doesn't make banning them any less stupid.
The real pisser in here is American Staffordshire and Staffordshire Terriers being thrown in with Pits. Both breeds have been bred for sweet, gentle temperament for decades; I used to work as a veterinary technician and the most aggressive thing either breed ever tried to do to me was lick my nose off.
Posted by: LabRat at September 25, 2004 02:37 AMMe neighors pit bull is a scary scary dog.
If your not careful, he might lick you to death.
But seriously, I don't think I've ever met a friendlier dog than Max. He was rescued from the pound as a year old, and having been raised in a loving environment, is just a bowl of laughter and love and licks. He makes my lab seem downright viscious.
Posted by: countertop at October 5, 2004 04:53 PMI have six dogs - I live on 60 country acres, my nearest neighbor is over 1/4 mile away.
The group includes a Rott, German Shepard, poodle, Pomeranian, and two Yorkies...
I was informed today that my home owners insurance has been cancelled because I have a GERMAN SHEPARD!
We recently applied for a new policy aan as part of the (apparently) bnormal procedure the insurance company sent an inspector to my home when no one was there.
The German Shepard was outside in a 16' x 40' x 6'high kennel, but the other dogs were in the house. The inspector saw the German Shepard and we "failed" the test for the new policy.
Now, this particular Shepard was actually adopted from the local city police department because he had been in training for police work but was deemed unsuitable because of temperment...he was too FRIENDLY to strangers!
Go figure.
And he is much more aggressive thatn the Rott, who has to be fed in his indoor (airline) kennel, because otherwise the Yorkies steal his food!
By the way, the insurance agent told me that there were more than 20 breeds of dog on the "banned" list!
Including:
Staf's - all versions
Pit Bulls
Rotts,
German Shepards,
Dobes
Husky's - including Alaskan, Siberian, Greenland
Malemutes
Chows
Bull Terriers
Mastif's - all versions
Akitas - both versions
Rhodesian Ridgebacks
And for those who like BIG dogs:
Kuvaz
Komodorok
Pyrenees (sorry about the spelling)
Great Dane
And a few more I cannot remember...
I am curious where this will stop?
Italy, for example, has now banned over 40 breeds from the country.
The latest KILLER breed to be banned?
How about Welsh Corgi!
I think it is wrong to ban certain breeds of dogs. It was wrong to ban certain kinds of people from things in the past. Dogs are like people, "a man's best friend", so why would you ban them from certain cities or even states. people should be able to have any kind of dog they want and if it is shown that they are mistreating the animal in away that is dangerous to the dog or would make the dog dangerous to others, take their dog away and give them a huge fine. Overall, it is wrong to ban certain breeds of dogs from places, it is like racism.
Posted by: at October 18, 2004 11:29 AMI have been around 8 pitbulls at a time. I knew people who raised them. Never once have I even been growled at by these animals. Why ban them because they are protective of their owners, well a weiner dog could be more viscious then pitbulls in that matter. IT IS JUST WRONG TO BAN BREEDS OF DOGS BECAUSE THEY SEEM DANGEROUS, WHEN HALF OF THEM DONT HAVE A MEAN HAIR ON THEM!!!!!
Posted by: at October 18, 2004 11:33 AM