Standoff!

[over9five]

Originally Posted by over9five

Nice job! Easy o/t watching those movies!

Although IE said it should only take 16 minutes to watch the 20 minute video...

[ideliver2u67]

Oh yea, but the best are the online assessments we have to do. 10 minutes to score a 100 % on 10 questions. I am sorry, just cant do it, I am just a dumb truck driver. Usually takes me at least 20 minutes. hehe

[ORLY!?!]

Originally Posted by ol'browneye

Sorry Sober but IE called and said your bulkhead door was open way too long at that stop and all knowing telematics decided you left it open while you walked that stop off. This picture is their proof! You're fired!

Seriously though, some of the nicest dogs I run into on my route are pitbulls. We even had one customer that got a lot of pkgs for his home business put "dog is friendly " on his labels so any different driver wouldn't be afraid of his pitbull, and she really was the sweetest thing.

I had one house that had 2 very friendly pitbulls. One day I pull up and as I approached the house they were jumping on me and licking me. I saw what I thought was a rag or a mophead laying by their door. As I got closer I realized it was the neighbors little yorkie. His throat had been ripped out and there was blood everywhere! I just thought "Nice doggie."

Pits might be friendly to people over all, but dogs are unpredictable. Two pits once came into my yard and pulled out the colin of one of my favorite outside cats. Of course the cat didnt have a chance because pits are quiet hunters.

Unlike other dogs, pits are stealth type hunters. Whereas most dogs would bark at pray or a chase, pitbulls make no barking or sounds when in pursuit.

Me and my Gf where walking up to the corner store one day. On the way back we passed a Pit and his owner. The pit was at the side of the house while the owner was on his cell by the front door not paying attention.

We passed the house and I got this feeling, like eyes in the back of your head. I looked back and the dog was charging right at us. When we or I go walking in my hood, I always carry a heavey rod with me. This rod is to fend of dogs. I've used it to fend off many dogs, strays and owned. If that pit would've come any closer I would and killed it.

[MC4YOU2]

Originally Posted by ideliver2u67

Maybe its just all the news headlines I have seen. But I am scared to death of Pitbulls. I have had a couple on previous routes and none have been the kind where you wanna chance a friendly pat on the head, without losing an arm. My daughter just baught a blue Pit from Alaska, and picked it up from the airport on Friday, so maybe my fear of them will change as i get acquainted with the breed. HOPEFULLY!!!

Socialize, socialize, socialize.

[dilligaf]

Originally Posted by MC4YOU2

Socialize, socialize, socialize.

Absolutely!

[MC4YOU2]

Originally Posted by over9five

Yeah! When their pitbulls maul some kid, the first words out of the owners mouth are always, "He is sooo sweet, he'd never attack someone!".

That's an easy one. The owners failed to do their part. All dogs are wild at heart and need limits. When owners fail to provide the necessary limits, tragedies can occur in any breed. Labradors are, according to the last UPS pcm I was given on dog safety, the number 1 people biter in the USA. Pits, Rotts and the like are more newsworthy.

[UpstateNYUPSer]

The only thing I miss about DIAD I and II was they were very effective in holding off dogs. Very effective.

[dilligaf]

Originally Posted by MC4YOU2

That's an easy one. The owners failed to do their part. All dogs are wild at heart and need limits. When owners fail to provide the necessary limits, tragedies can occur in any breed. Labradors are, according to the last UPS pcm I was given on dog safety, the number 1 people biter in the USA. Pits, Rotts and the like are more newsworthy.

There are some labs on rtes here that I wouldn't trust to turn my back on.

[klein]

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 !

[fethrs]

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.

[Jones]

Originally Posted by fethrs

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.

Pit Bulls have been banned all over the US. The military has banned them from base housing at quite a few bases.

[klein]

Originally Posted by fethrs

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.

Nope, it's a city bylaw. Outside the city, you can have them.
Hey, we have a chicken dispute going on.
Been a bylaw, you can't raise farm animals (including chickens within city limits).
Now some cities are allowing chickens back.

The next city to the west of us, doesn't allow cell phones while driving, and have a curfew on kids under 16, to be indoors after 10 pm or midnight.

Up to the city, don't like it, move.

[fethrs]

I hear ya O'Canada

[dilligaf]

Originally Posted by fethrs

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.

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.

[klein]

Pit bull ban begins

Last Updated: Monday, August 29, 2005 | 1:47 PM ET

CBC News


The country's first-ever province-wide ban on pit bulls took effect Monday in Ontario, and breeders wasted no time in announcing a constitutional challenge to the ban. Lawyer Clayton Ruby called the law "too vague" and "overly broad," and said the legislation lists a number of breeds that are "substantially similar" to pit bulls.

• CBC INDEPTH: Banning the breed: The debate over pit bulls

The ban makes it illegal to breed pit bulls in Ontario or bring the dogs into the province. Dogs already in Ontario are allowed to stay as long as they are sterilized, leashed and muzzled in public.
Registered purebreds are exempt from sterilization as long as they continue to participate in authorized dog shows.
Puppies born after Nov. 27, 2005 must be shipped out of the province, given to a research facility or destroyed.
Ontario breeders argue the ban violates breeders' constitutional rights. Hundreds of supporters of pit bull-type dogs gathered in front of the provincial legislature to protest on Sunday.
Other supporters, including the American Staffordshire Club of Canada, say that Ontario's law is so vague and unscientific that it will affect many animals that shouldn't be banned.
The law forbids Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American pit bull terriers and any other dog with "an appearance and physical characteristics substantially similar to any of those dogs."
Last year, Ontario's attorney general Michael Bryant introduced the ban after a spate of vicious attacks on children, adults and pets by pit bulls.
In a widely-reported case, Toronto police fired more than a dozen bullets into two pit bulls that had turned on the man who was walking them as a favour for a friend. In another in London, Ont., a woman and her seven-year-old son watched in horror as a pit bull latched onto her husband's arm as he tried to keep the family puppy out of the dog's reach.
While some breeders are fighting the ban, others are leaving the province.
"It means I'm going to be moving out of Ontario," said Ann Mathews. Mathews has been breeding purebred American Staffordshire terriers for seven years. "It means I'll be leaving my three grandchildren, my five children and moving to a province that isn't so arrogant and isn't so stupid about the laws."

[klein]

Originally Posted by fethrs

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!?!]

Originally Posted by dilligaf

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.

[dilligaf]

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]

Originally Posted by dilligaf

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]

Originally Posted by klein

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]

Originally Posted by MC4YOU2

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.

[klein]

Originally Posted by MC4YOU2

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.

[ORLY!?!]

Originally Posted by dilligaf

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]

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]

Originally Posted by klein

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?