Standoff!

klein

Für Meno :)
You do realize it's not just the dogs, but the people who raise them...that to me seems a bit paranoid...but that's Canada.

And US cities : (here just 1 of them)

Denver Pit Bull Ban Repeal Eyed

Posted on 03 August 2009

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS
A City Council member is working on an ordinance change that would allow pit bulls in Denver.
But repealing the city’s 20-year-old ban on pit bulls would come with many stipulations, such as requiring temperament testing, muzzling the dog, and requiring special licensing and insurance fees, to name a few proposed restrictions.
Councilwoman Carla Madison — who identifies herself as a “dog lover” who is opposed to the city’s breed-specific legislation — said the idea is only in very preliminary stages, being discussed with fellow Council members, the mayor, animal control officials and city attorneys.
“For me personally, it’s not about the dogs, but about the people who own the dogs,” said Madison.
Being called the Responsible Pit Bull Ownership Act, support for the ordinance change is growing with a national pro-pit bull group based out of California called ROVERlution. Founder of the group, David Edelstein, said the city could help close its $120 million budget shortfall if it only repealed the breed ban.
“They’re spending about a quarter of a million dollars per year (on enforcing this ban). But has it alleviated dog bites in Denver? No, not even close,” said Edelstein.
City officials were unable to present the Denver Daily News with a cost analysis of how much it costs to enforce the ban, stating that there is no specific line item for the enforcement, and that the cost is part of overall animal control costs.
But Meghan Hughes, spokeswoman for the Department of Environmental Health, said ROVERlution never contacted her office in conducting its cost analysis. Records provided by Hughes show that 2,011 pit bulls have been euthanized by the city.
Regardless, Edelstein says the city can both save and make money by repealing the ban and then issuing fines and fees related to an ordinance change.
“Now is the perfect time to use home rule for something productive and in the name of public welfare,” he wrote to city officials. “This law and its authority has been abused long enough.”
Mayor considering it
Mayor John Hickenlooper told the Denver Daily News that his office is considering Madison’s proposal.
“This is something we will certainly look at carefully,” he said. “In the end, we want to do what’s best to maintain a safe city for everyone.”
Hughes was unable to say with certainty whether a ban on pit bulls has made the city safer.
“I don’t know that there’s one single answer to that. I think it all depends on the way you look at it,” she said. “Technically, there hasn’t been any serious bites since the ban was put into place; however, it’s hard to tell when you really don’t know how many dogs are out there.”
Denver actually has a higher than normal rate of dog hospitalizations than any other area of Colorado, despite the ban, according to the National Canine Research Council.
Does ban work?
Several other towns and cities in Colorado — including Englewood and Lakewood — have examined dog bite data and decided breed-specific legislation does not work.
Ban advocates, however, point out that there has not been a serious pit bull attack in Denver since the 1989 mauling of Rev. Wilbur Billingsley, who was left with more than 70 bites and two broken legs. The incident resulted in the City Council banning pit bulls from the city.
Local ban foes declined to comment on Madison’s proposal, saying it is too premature.
Meanwhile, three former Denver residents have filed a lawsuit to overturn the ban. In May, a federal appeals court in Denver gave the go-ahead to challenge the law in court. The three-judge panel overturned a March 2008 decision by a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit.
Looking to save money
Facing budgetary pressures, sources — who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press — said city officials have expressed an interest in finding a fast compromise to squash the lawsuit and stop mounting legal fees. A compromise could include fast-tracking the Responsible Pit Bull Ownership Act.
But supporters are sure to come across opposition, including from inside the city attorney’s office. Kori Nelson, a Denver assistant city attorney who led the city’s fight to re-enact its ban in 2004, has on numerous occasions told the Denver Daily News that pit bulls are a unique breed with inherently dangerous characteristics.
“It’s designed to prevent maulings and death attacks by pit bulls,” he said of the ban.
City attorneys are still trying to determine whether the ban must first be repealed before it can be changed, said Madison.
Madison seeks input
The councilwoman says she has been receiving letters concerning her proposal from across the nation, but very few from Denver citizens. She is asking for Denverites to send her their opinions so that she and the rest of Council can make an informed decision.
“I’m just a dog lover, and I have had pit mixes and have known pits that are great dogs, and I know people that have had to leave the city because of their dog,” said Madison. “But, ya know, people snap. Some people say that pit bulls have this internal negative thing that they can just all of a sudden be nice family dogs and then one day just snap. But I think that could happen to anyone at any time.”
Distributed by Colorado Capitol Reporters


« To See Or Not To See At Coors Field
Monday Trial Watch: Nacchio’s Sentencing Overturned »
 

ORLY!?!

Master Loader
I think if the dogs are going to be outlawed the owners should be as well. Dogs do what dogs do, it's f88888 idiot owners that don't control their animals that cause problems.

Pits have not been outlawed here.

A lot of dogs are territorial. They protect it, whatever means there is. Some dogs loath the sound of the UPS cars driving by. I've seen a past dog of mine get really upset over them.

Pits are considered loaded guns for a reason. They can pull a 500 pound dead weight in full pursuit. They go for the necks of their vitcims. When they bite down they dont left go.

How many times I look at the kennel in my own state and all I see are pits. These dogs are mostly roaming the streets. How many dog bites are reported in this country a year. How many of those are fatalities and over all number of each bit are from pitbulls.

I say people wanting to own pits should be required to purchase a license on each one. The dogs are used today mostly for hunting wild boar. With a dog that can take down this vicious animal I would hope that person whould be able to contol that dog over all.
 
Last edited:

dilligaf

IN VINO VERITAS
Orly

There is not one thing that you have said that I can argue with, at least with any statistics. But I think that, by far Pits have a worse reputation than they deserve. So do Rotts, Sheppards, and a few other large breed dogs. I will say that, in MPO, Chows are far more likely to be territorial and agressive than a Pit is. That is not to say a Pit isn't territorial. They are.

The whole point that I have is that it IS the owner that is the cause of any dogs behavior.
 

ajblakejr

Age quod agis


The whole point that I have is that it IS the owner that is the cause of any dogs behavior.

Agreed.
Another breed that has been demonized is the Alaskan Malamute!

I raised a gentle opinionated Malamute.
What destroys some large dog breeds is the mixing with wolves.

Maybe some owners should be forced to live the life they force upon many breeds.

The local Senor Center has a Pit Pull as a therapy dog. She loves being petted, brushed and giving kisses.

Owners. Can make or break a dog.
 

MC4YOU2

Wherever I see Trump, it smells like he's Putin.
Our City did the right thing a few years back. Banned pitbulls alltogether !
Any new ones are not allowed and won't be able to be licensed.

We had enough of thier attacks. Something had to be done !

So....using that logic the US should ban Labradors? Breed specific legislation is an attempt to regulate a problem by punishing the innocents. Dogs will only do what they are allowed to. Any breed is the same, just some have been slighted by having loser owners who failed them. The same type of people raise criminals for kids. Should we ban kids so that there will be no more gangs? Same logic.
 

dilligaf

IN VINO VERITAS
So....using that logic the US should ban Labradors? Breed specific legislation is an attempt to regulate a problem by punishing the innocents. Dogs will only do what they are allowed to. Any breed is the same, just some have been slighted by having loser owners who failed them. The same type of people raise criminals for kids. Should we ban kids so that there will be no more gangs? Same logic.
Great point MC. This could apply to many different aspects of society. IE drinking on the job.
 
Last edited:

klein

Für Meno :)
So....using that logic the US should ban Labradors? Breed specific legislation is an attempt to regulate a problem by punishing the innocents. Dogs will only do what they are allowed to. Any breed is the same, just some have been slighted by having loser owners who failed them. The same type of people raise criminals for kids. Should we ban kids so that there will be no more gangs? Same logic.

Denver isn't the only city that banned them.
Don't throw this one towards me.
Google Pittbull Ban , and many cities show up across the USA.

You had it in place, before we did.

This could aly to many different aspects of society. IE drinking on the job.

Already in place, as you know so well.

And if your so uptight with having pittbulls and guns.
Then why don't you start living in a neighborhood full of those 2 things.
Would make you feel much more free.
The nicest neighborhood you could ever dream of, I bet.
 
Last edited:

ORLY!?!

Master Loader
Orly

There is not one thing that you have said that I can argue with, at least with any statistics. But I think that, by far Pits have a worse reputation than they deserve. So do Rotts, Sheppards, and a few other large breed dogs. I will say that, in MPO, Chows are far more likely to be territorial and agressive than a Pit is. That is not to say a Pit isn't territorial. They are.

The whole point that I have is that it IS the owner that is the cause of any dogs behavior.

I would say that is true to a certain point. Dogs are as individualistic as people are. The proof of that is in our own behavior when selectiong a pup/ kitten or a stray from the pound. We only select those we see that have a friendly or outgoing nature.

I do agree the owners have a place in the dogs or cats heart. Trust is also a huge issues with animals. New people, smells or sounds can make any of them react randomly. I recall seeing a CSI episode where a dog went beserk because of loud sounds, but seemed friendly as can be up until then. A lot of those stories are written on true events, as well.

I would like to see chained up laws passed too in every state. As the people you deliever to will not be there, they must chain any dog up away from the front door or left inside with no way outside. In a reasonable place with shade, food and water. This will include if the dog is always outside whenever the people are there or not.

I know I know the dog is also used for secruity reasons as well. But there is a double edge sword to that as well. I,ve seen stories of people walking threw private lands or farms lands and getting attacked by trained guard dogs. Some ending up in deaths of thieves and people just passing threw private land.

For me, I dont trust any dog. I was bitten in the face by a dog in the past. It doesnt mean I have a thing out for dogs, but it does for me think that any and every animal cant really be trusted, no matter how friendly. The people next door have two dogs that really like me, but I will always know that they are nice doesnt mean they are 100% trustworthy.
 

dilligaf

IN VINO VERITAS
I don't agree with you on a chain law. I believe that is cruel, especially for those dogs that are left on a chain 24 hrs a day. Trust is a huge issue with any 2 or 4 legged animal. I have trust issues but that is neither here nor there. Sounds, smells and the like cause reations for humans as well as animals. It is part of a self preservation instinct.

Now to the private property and trusting of unknown animals. I firmly believe that NO ONE should ever trust an animal and absolutely should never trust an owner that says, "my dog is nice, he won't bite". BTDT and have gotten bit anyway. Crossing private property........... it's the owners responsibility to post no tresspassing signs, it's the publics responsibility to not trespass. I'm sorry but if you cross my posted property you deserve to get bit. In our position as a delivery driver the owner gives us permission to be on their property when they order and expect it to be delivered. That puts the responsibility back on the owner.

So basically, there are responsibilities on all sides.......... unfortunately it is quite often the dog that gets unduly blamed. IMO and this is not 100%
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
And if your so uptight with having pittbulls and guns.
Then why don't you start living in a neighborhood full of those 2 things.
Would make you feel much more free.
The nicest neighborhood you could ever dream of, I bet.

I live in one of the nicest neighborhoods in my city.

There are at least 2 pitbulls within walking distance of my house.

This being a semi-rural community in a rural state (Oregon), probably 8 out of 10 homes in my neighborhood have guns.

3 of my neighbors are members of the same gun club that I belong to, and all three of them, like myself, have concealed-handgun permits and carry guns on a daily basis.

I have lived here for 5 years and have yet to see the police called to any of the gun-owning, pitbull owning homes in my neighborhood. The crime rate here is very low.

I wonder why?
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
I live in one of the nicest neighborhoods in my city.

There are at least 2 pitbulls within walking distance of my house.

This being a semi-rural community in a rural state (Oregon), probably 8 out of 10 homes in my neighborhood have guns.

3 of my neighbors are members of the same gun club that I belong to, and all three of them, like myself, have concealed-handgun permits and carry guns on a daily basis.

I have lived here for 5 years and have yet to see the police called to any of the gun-owning, pitbull owning homes in my neighborhood. The crime rate here is very low.

I wonder why?

You don't live in a big city?

I have a house in the NC mountains and big crime story there is teenagers stealing jewelry from an unlocked booth at the fair.

Wouldn't even be investigated here in metro Atlanta.

I get your point though and I firmly believe in owning guns. I like dogs but they are too much trouble ... maybe when I retire.

And it will not be a Chihuahua so Upstate will not be afraid to visit me.
 

klein

Für Meno :)
I live in one of the nicest neighborhoods in my city.

There are at least 2 pitbulls within walking distance of my house.

This being a semi-rural community in a rural state (Oregon), probably 8 out of 10 homes in my neighborhood have guns.

3 of my neighbors are members of the same gun club that I belong to, and all three of them, like myself, have concealed-handgun permits and carry guns on a daily basis.

I have lived here for 5 years and have yet to see the police called to any of the gun-owning, pitbull owning homes in my neighborhood. The crime rate here is very low.

I wonder why?

Ok, I never lived in the states. Just visiting. I wouldn't know.
I have never seen a cop in my neighborhood either. And I leave my housedoor open when I leave for an hr or 2.

We have dogs in my neighborhood, no pitbulls due to a city bylaw.
The last stroke was, when a small infant or 1 yr old got mauled to death.

But, after what I seen on news, TV, even Judge Joe Brown... I wouldn't trust a pitbull.
Our city, and Denver and others didn't ban them for no reason.
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
I am a "dog person" and can tell almost immediately whether or not a dog might bite me.

Lots of dogs bark; usually this means that they are either greeting you or communicating your presence to their owner.

I had never met this pitbull before but I knew right away that she was friendly; she was a wiggle-butt dog that jumped into the truck right way with her ears perked up instead of laid back, and she was sniffing around and wagging her tail.

The aggressive ones are usually silent, their ears are laid back, and they stare directly at you. They dont sniff around or look away from you.
pretty pitbull 2.jpg
 

MC4YOU2

Wherever I see Trump, it smells like he's Putin.
Denver isn't the only city that banned them.
Don't throw this one towards me.
Google Pittbull Ban , and many cities show up across the USA.

You had it in place, before we did.



Already in place, as you know so well.

And if your so uptight with having pittbulls and guns.
Then why don't you start living in a neighborhood full of those 2 things.
Would make you feel much more free.
The nicest neighborhood you could ever dream of, I bet.

Nothing against Canada, I just think that BSL is the wrong way to correct the problem of dog bites regardless of what country it's in. Sure BSL has happened in some places, but it's also been repealed in some cities. I do not and would not live in a city that banned any dog breed, guns.....or Canadians. They all come in handy sometimes. I live in a nice middle class neighborhood in a college town, and last summer a couple of meth heads decided to break into homes during the day when people were at work. They broke into many of my dog-less neighbors homes, but passed on mine.
 

dilligaf

IN VINO VERITAS
I am a "dog person" and can tell almost immediately whether or not a dog might bite me.

Lots of dogs bark; usually this means that they are either greeting you or communicating your presence to their owner.

I had never met this pitbull before but I knew right away that she was friendly; she was a wiggle-butt dog that jumped into the truck right way with her ears perked up instead of laid back, and she was sniffing around and wagging her tail.

The aggressive ones are usually silent, their ears are laid back, and they stare directly at you. They dont sniff around or look away from you.
The 'look' is a big giveaway. A submissive dog will not stare at you. They will look away. A dog that stares....................don't turn your back on it.
 

fethrs

Well-Known Member
The 'look' is a big giveaway. A submissive dog will not stare at you. They will look away. A dog that stares....................don't turn your back on it.
I have heard that staring back an aggressive dog is like a threat to the dog, they consider it a threat.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
I am a "dog person" and can tell almost immediately whether or not a dog might bite me.

Lots of dogs bark; usually this means that they are either greeting you or communicating your presence to their owner.

I had never met this pitbull before but I knew right away that she was friendly; she was a wiggle-butt dog that jumped into the truck right way with her ears perked up instead of laid back, and she was sniffing around and wagging her tail.

The aggressive ones are usually silent, their ears are laid back, and they stare directly at you. They dont sniff around or look away from you.

The 'look' is a big giveaway. A submissive dog will not stare at you. They will look away. A dog that stares....................don't turn your back on it.

It occurs to me there are a lot of similarities between dogs and women!
 

soberups

Pees in the brown Koolaid
But, after what I seen on news, TV, even Judge Joe Brown... I wouldn't trust a pitbull.
Our city, and Denver and others didn't ban them for no reason.

The news you see on the TV is ratings-driven. "If it bleeds, it leads."

Lots of big-city politicians stay in office by passing "feel-good" legislation that is poorly written and accomplishes nothing other than creating the illusion that they are "doing something" about a percieved problem. Bans on pitbulls, "gun free" zones around schools that are nothing more than lines on a map, and "drug free" zones are all examples of legislation that creates a warm, fuzzy feeling but doesnt actually solve any problems.

Laws like these are nothing more that a slippery slope that lead us inevitably to the "nanny state" that we see in Great Britain and, to a lesser extent, Canada and Europe.
 

ol'browneye

Well-Known Member
The 'look' is a big giveaway. A submissive dog will not stare at you. They will look away. A dog that stares....................don't turn your back on it.

Good point, but take it a little farther...don't turn your back on any dog. Sure, there are the friendly ones that you deal with 2-3 times a week that you know wouldn't hurt a flea, but most dogs will get you when you turn your back and walk away, big or little.

I have to admit I got bit by a pitbull this summer, well, more like I was sampled by the dog. I pulled up to a familiar house and saw the owner and a visitor in the back yard. The visitor came around to get the box being trailed by a pitbull. It was the visitors dog so I had never seen or met this dog before. The dog was as laid back as could be, tail wagging and her tongue just a hanging almost like she was smiling. I let my guard down and just ignored her because of her disposition. As the guy got up to me I lost sight of the dog beneath the large box I was holding in front of me. While I was handing it to him I felt the dog chomp on my knee! I let out a surprised expletive and hollered "She just bit me!" He said "Yea she likes to do that. She was just tasting you."
I checked my knee and there was no broken skin that I could see. He assured me that she had all her shots and showed me her tag. I looked at the dog again and she was just standing there with her tongue hanging out just looking around like nothing happened!
I like to think that I can read most dogs by their body language but this one fooled me. I guess she was just getting to know me!
 
Top