Friday, November 18, 2005
"HOW MUCH IS THAT DOGGIE IN THE WINDOW"
Our city (town) is presently considering more regulations on dogs. The so called "KILLER" dogs. Those nasty canines that have been bred from antiquities to the present to be just that...killer dogs. I find it hard to fathom why anyone would want this sort of animal as a pet, they are not pets. They are what is known as "WORKING DOGS" (not to be confused with those that are beneficial to the impaired or the farmer. ) Then again you have your other nasty breeds.....like those high strung little Mexican tamale dogs, ever try to pet one? Point here being there are a lot of dogs that are nasty but are kept as pets. Should it be Breed specific or Temperament specific, or Both? How far should we go to regulate that "Doggie In The Window"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
The North Adams ordinance in process is not breed specific. That has been reiterated many times on the Council floor. Just ask chbpod.
cjtrem...yes and no! I'm easy, try to please everyone. Will bring it back soon!
blog master...read the question again! The question is....SHOULD IT BE .....based on one or the other or both. It's a question not a statement!
blog master...I stand corrected, I did mention breed. Has been corrected!
cjtrem...you are the second person that has mentioned the signature.....seems it is now two to one.....I hate having to make decisions so early in the morning!
I hate those nasty ass guard dogs. We've got a few in our neighborhood and I am sick of people saying "Oh he likes kids" and stuff like that when he's obviously slobbering over the thought of them being lunch.
It's funny, some people claim that certain breeds are not dangerous and that it is the owner not the breed . . . but that's a moot point, since the same breeds are bred with cruelty and end up attacking again and again. Perhaps the answer is to make certain breeds illegal until the nastiness is bred out of them.
Anyhow, I think that pets should keep to themselves. I have a dachsund in the neighborhood whose irritating yapping wakes me up way too early. I like cats. They keep to themselves. They don't provoke, their natural tendency is to avoid.
And why are all the meanest guard time dogs shackled to the biggest shit holes anyhow? What the hell are they trying to guard?
john...maybe it is a sexual thing....."my dog is big and mean" the ID thingy? Could be a reflection of their personality.....ever notice how dogs seem to look like their owners? Me, I like wild and crazy mutts. Gentil to the bone, great with the kids, super watch dogs, and it's like you said...you won't be on their menue! But admitily I am a cat fan.
Why do some people want to own AK-47s? I think the regulation should be breed specific.
These breeds of dogs are not any different than one owning a weapon. I think the right thing to do is regulate/license the owners. Maybe make owners attend a dog training program before being licensed to own such a breed.
Owners of these attack breeds and lethal weapons should be held accountable for any damage/desruction/death they may cause whether the owner is directly involved or not.
Your dog gets loose and causes destruction, the dog is destroyed and you the owner lose your license to own another "dangerous" breed in this city because you are not capable of the responsibility that goes along with owning such a breed.
da snoop...Hmmmm.... Your analogy is a little strange but I do see what you are referenceing to. (We can talk about the second amendment later) But I do agree with you that all the regulations and restrictions in the world are useless unless the "OWNER", or the person that has control over the dog is held responsible! I agree these dogs are lethal weapons by defination. Just loosing a license is not much of a deterent.
da snoop...but having said all that, it seems that the council is not considering breed in the mix? That does confuse the hell out of me, if not the breed then what? I would venture that there are already on the books laws governing "Mean Old Junk Yard Dogs". The Dog Officer would be the best person to answer that one. I just don't know!
My idea was a person would be responsible for their dog. The penality would fit the crime. The first step being the lose of license. If the dog assaults a person, the owner is charged with assault. If the dog kills someone the owner is charged with murder/manslaughter, whatever fits.
Yes... That is what I thought you were saying...But forget the license. Just have the owner responsible for his/her dog and pay the penality, no easy first offence get out of jail free card!
So what would you do for a dog that eats someone's cat? Make the owner cough up a hair ball? :~) Or say some vicious G. Retreiver licked a campaign sign to destruction? But seriously, what would you do for "minor" offenses? Probably fine the owner? That brings in some money, but there would still be cost associated with the regulation even if nobody violated it. A license (and associated fee) would be a way to re-coup the costs involved in enforcing the ordinance.
There wouldn't be a first offense "get out of jail free card". The very least would be lose of license, any further punishment would be in addition to and, in relation to, the first offense.
When my fiancée moves up here in January, we get to have a blended family...her dachshund, my cat.
I'm already buying iodine in bulk.
WF
I got my money on the weiner dog...
That's another point about having to get a BADL (Bad Ass Dog License), it will make people really think about whether they should get this type of dog or not. If it costs an extra $50 for a DADL your not going to get one because Aunt Harriet's pit bull had some pups.
Bottom line, for me anyway, if you not going to associate some costs to the dog owner with a new ordiance, what's the point. What is a new ordiance going to do that existing laws don't already cover?
da snoop... all dogs are SUPPOSED to be already lisenced with the city, there by being under the managment of the existing ordinances. What all the laws intail, I don't know, but I would guess that most of the minor offences are already within the scope of the existing laws or letting the dog officer have a bit of latitude to work out the goofy complaints! If someone wanted to bring an owner of a pet to justice, say for eating up my dirty underware out of the laundry basket on my proch, (they were my favorite,had red hearts and smiley faces on them) then that may be covered already. Maybe it just covers getting the shots? I don't know? Our society sometimes has a tendency to try to over regulate and misses the point or the spirit of the law!
You are all correct...hit them in the pocket book.
CJT that's a good one - "entail". I do agree with you, but an extra license fee would be imposed for the BADL or what's the point in singling out a breed or two of dogs?
wes... just let your cat show the sausage dog the ropes...plenty of good huntin in these hear hills! :~)
unfortunately, by the time the owner has to take "responsibility" for their vicious dog, some small child is either muitlated or even dead. At the VERY LEAST, scarred for life either physically or emotionally. No amount of financial responsibility can undo that.
JET
Well Jet, you could say the same about firearms as well. Does that mean you do nothing?
JET...I believe that is the purpose of the debate. How do you keep this sort of thing from happening in the first place. You have any ideas?....da snoop...we'll talk later :~)
Actually, the cat is larger than the dog. I wouldn't bet against the Amazing Hep Cat.
WF
well, anytime you debate an issue like this, there will undoubtedly be those that want to play the "rights of the people" card. True... preserving our rights is the quintessential building block of America, but common sense tells us that society must put limitations on individuals, for the good of its whole. As Spock said "the good of the many outweigh the good of the one". I know you are a trekkie Southview :) As individuals, we cannot own tigers and lions as household pets, but aren't they just big "kitties? No, they are aggresive and dangerous by nature. They pose a real threat. So do the vicious breeds of dogs. I don't believe ownership of such animals should be allowed. Period. If there were not he demand, breeders would not "mass produce" these dogs. It is not the fault of the og... nature is what nature is, but instead it is the fault of people who perpetuate the demand.
JET
Jet is your position that these "dangerous" breed dogs should be outlawed all together?
woof woof-- that's my dog tige-- he lives in a shoe-- I'm Buster Brown--look for me in there too---- only for old timers---(what breed of dog was Tige?) -chbpod
Wasn't it an American Pit Bull terrier??
da snoop, I think that at some point, humans need to say "hey, we really screwed this up Something needs to be done". Originally, the pit bull breeds were not bred for viciousness. Gosh, Pete the Pup (on the Little Rascals) was an American Pit Bull Terrier. In the early 1930's unscrupulous, uncaring and ignorant people started to breed the dogs en mas for the growing "pit fighting" craze. These backyard breeders have wrecked havoc on the blood lines for over 60 years. Unfortunately it is that intrusion of humans that has come full circle and now poses a threat. I think that what we have done can be undone, if addressed. I am no expert, but I do believe that we have enough experts that could turn this around. But ONLY if we eliminate the demand. Not only do I think it would be better for the communities, it would be better for the dogs in the long run. The image of the gnarling, drooling pit bull, straining against the thick chain attached to their spiked collar, is not an accurate dipiction of the origanal breed, but it is what it has become.
JET
Yes blog master. In fact, Tige was played in the early Buster Brown movies by the same dog that played Pete the Pup! According to the web site below:
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/pete.html
And we all thought our lovable Petey was loyal only to the Little Rascals. Not quite! Before he signed on with Hal Roach Studios as America’s favorite pooch, he appeared in a series of "Buster Brown" comedies which were sort-of low rent Our Gang films.
Daintily attired Buster found himself in innocuous misadventures along side his faithful canine companion, Tige. (Petey to you and me!) Unlike Our Gang, the series was obviously aimed at very young audiences and offered very little for adults. I have no doubt that youngsters were thoroughly entertained by Buster Brown, however
JET
Jet I agree that the blood lines could be cleaned up, but what to do in the mean time? Perhaps if the dogs who proved themselves to be "gnarling, drooling pit bull, straining against the thick chain attached to their spiked collar" where destroyed, sort of a canine version of the Darwin Awards the issue would eventually take care of itself. Of course, the bloodline cleanzing would have to on a national or international level, and the City Council can only deal with NA. Until that time, or maybe to help speed up the process locally, a surcharge is accessed the owners of such dogs would the demand might decrease. Another sin tax of sorts.
And here I thought the City Council was all powerful! Just teasing. I think the surcharge is a good idea, along with mandatory insurance. I don't persume to think that a local government can solve an issue of such global scale, but as "they" say, every journey starts with a single step"
JET
Post a Comment