The World According to Nick
Politics, News, Photography, and Triathlons... What don't I talk about?
Monday, May 07, 2007
<< Irony Alert When Software and Politics Collide >>
Breed Specific Nonsense

This story came on my radar last week, about a feisty Jack Russel Terrier who protected some kids from larger pit bulls, and died for his bravery:

New Zealand media report that George, a 9-year-old Jack Russell terrier, suffered fatal wounds while protecting five young children from two vicious pit bulls.

Richard Rosewarne, 11, tells his local paper that the pit bulls came up behind them and were going for his 4-year-old brother, Darryl Wilson, when tiny George jumped between them.

"These two pit bulls rushed up and were going for the little boy. George went for them, it's what he would do. He didn't stand a chance, but I reckon he saved that boy from being chewed up," owner Alan Gay, 69, tells the Taranaki Daily News. "These pitbulls should be banned. They're killers and it comes from them being bred for fighting."

The story is incredibly sad, but also shows exactly why I love dogs so much.  The loyalty and bravery that this dog showed in protecting those children is extraordinary.  Dogs are the ultimate loyal companion.  They are working animals, who love and protect their owners, and hopefully get that same love and protection in return.

The article of course contains the obligatory reference to the renewed need for a breed specific ban.  People who call for them don't know the first thing about dogs.  Breed specific bans are no different than calls to ban all hand guns.  They demonize the tool, and not the person.  Breed specific bans are nothing new.  Various communities in the United States have enacted them to the horror of many loving dog owners.  Families have literally been torn apart as enforcement agencies have collected these mostly loving dogs to be destroyed, or sent to shelters outside the city.

The problem is that there is no such breed as a "pit bull".  It's a generic name given to an entire class of breeds, many of which aren't even popular as a "dangerous dog".  Most people who refer to pit bulls generally are talking about the American Pitbull Terrier*.  Do you know what that dog looks like?  Go to this page and see if you can find the pit bull.  But these vague laws get passed, often times with language stating that any dog that "resembles" a pit bull (a non-existent breed) are illegal.

The reality is that the "pit bull" is really just the newest "in vogue" breed for dangerous people to own and train.  Years ago the dangerous dog of choice was either the Doberman or Rottweiler.  Before that it was the German Shepherd.  But those dogs aren't dangerous at birth.  My sister Sarah owns two Rottweilers (Tango and Kai), and used to have a Rott/Doberman mix (Draven).  Those dogs are anything but vicious.  In fact, they're just like their owner.  They're princesses.

And that's the key phrase.  They're just like their owners.  Dangerous people own dangerous dogs, no matter what the breed.  Kind and warm people own kind and warm dogs, no matter what the breed.  Just like criminals commit crimes with guns, and law abiding citizens use guns to protect themselves from criminals.  And when hand guns are banned, who turns them in?  Law abiding citizens, not criminals.  And true to form, some cities have allowed an amnesty period for people to turn in their now banned dogs to be destroyed.  So law abiding citizens can voluntarily euthanize their dogs, while criminals... well what do you think criminals will do?  Criminals will be the only people with those dangerous breeds, which will only serve to reinforce the myth that all pit bulls are dangerous.  How convenient.

*Update:  Thanks to Cherie of the Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States for correcting me on the differences between the American Staffordshire Terrier and the American Pitbull Terrier.  I've correct the post to reflect that.  Please check out their website for more information regarding Breed Specific Laws.  It's good stuff.

# Posted at 1:19 PM by Nick  |  Comment Feed Link 11 Comments  |  No Trackbacks

 Add to del.icio.us |  Digg this Post | Filed Under: Stupid Laws

Monday, May 07, 2007 5:48:50 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Another way to look at it could be that all dogs are tools, like fire-arms. We in the wrong hands they are dangerous and in the right hands, they are not. But pit-bulls are like bazookas and Jack Russel Terriers are like regular guns. Bazookas are illegal because in the wrong hands they can do much MORE damage than most guns.
jesusisjustalrightwithme
Monday, May 07, 2007 8:32:04 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Actually your analogy isn't really fitting either jesusisjustalrightwithme. When you get a dog, it's more like buying a lego kit. You can choose to build a gun with it, or you can choose to build a cool car to race with your friends. I've known some vicious poodles and labradors... and princess rottweilers. You build the dog into what you choose. So do you want to make all legos illegal?
Monday, May 07, 2007 8:50:55 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Dogs are as individual, and distinctive within their given breed as any human being is individual, and unique within his/her ethnicity. The idea that all dogs of any given breed are stamped out of the same mold of temperament, physical exactitude, i.e. conformation, and behavioral psychology is erroneous, and dangerous thinking. Dogs certainly are a reflection of their owners. They reflect their owners care, nurture, training, expectations, responsibility, socialization, or lack thereof.

Enacted, breed specific dog legislation sets a legal precedent that allows the enacting body to add any or all other breeds of dogs, or even domestic species with no further public notice. It is a slippery slope that leads legislated to extinction. There are now seventy-five breeds of dogs that are named in BSL in the USA in legislation that is passed, proposed or tabled. That is fully 1/5 of all recognized breeds, and when adding all of the mixed breeds that are also named it becomes truly frightening.
Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
http://www.povn.com/rdows
Tuesday, May 08, 2007 10:16:08 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Thanks Nick.. here's a good analogy.. ALL guns are not dangerous if they are kept in a drawer in your home LOCKED up..All dogs are not dangerous if kept under the control of their owners... Dogs are great no matter what the breed.. Leash Laws are even better.. most of these incidents would NEVER happen if owners kept their pets confined when they are not with them and on leash when they are..there is a time and place for dogs to "run free".. and that is not during the day while the owner is at work!!! LOL...

BSL is a sad commentary on our "quick fix" society. I can't remember hearing the word "banned' in my first 30 years of life.. but I sure can remember hearing it at least 50 times yesterday..

Jan Dykema
Licensed American Kennel Club Judge
Director, Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
(glad you liked the site)

jan dykema
Tuesday, May 08, 2007 10:39:09 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Given that Reverend Russell bred the "pit bull" of his day, into the Jack Russell/Parsons Russell Terrier to increase their tenacity, it is also probable that the JRT attacked the "pit bulls" and was sorely outclassed. (see my article "Media Bias" at: http://www.thedogpress.com/Columns/Jade/06_Media.Bias_07.asp)
A senseless tragedy for the apparently UNSUPERVISED children and UNSUPERVISED, at large dogs - all the way around.JRT's are renown for their "Napoleon complex". 22 years of working with all breeds bears this out for me, and I really like the feisty little buggers. Just wouldn't choose to own one. I prefer the laid back temperment of "pit bulls". If dogs are like their owners, Then I don't go looking for a fight, but I won't back down from one either. Reciprocally, that would make my "pit bulls" loyal to a fault, hard working, intelligent and capable of great discretion, reliable under pressure, honest as the day is long...yup, dogs are like their owners! Too bad the media keeps selling a great breed to the wrong people.
jade
Wednesday, May 09, 2007 5:57:36 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
No Nick, my analogy is perfectly fitting for the alternative point that I was trying to make. Perhaps you didn't understand it because I understated it. For the record, I am definately against breed-specific bans, I just don't think your analogy is totally fair.

I'm going to try to compare dogs to weapons again since that's what everyone seems to want to do. Since a bazooka didn't seem to get my point accross, I'll try again: One could argue that pit-bulls are like nuclear bombs while Jack Russel terriers are like handguns. Both handguns and nuclear bombs are perfectly safe when kept locked up properly, and very dangerous when dangerous people use them for the wrong reasons. However, most societies have drawn a line that says that because nuclear weapons are SO MUCH MORE dangerous than other kinds of weapons when in the wrong hands, private citizens are not allowed to own them even if they have permits or whatever. Similarly, because of the superior strength of certain breeds of dogs, they are capable of causing much greater damage than other breeds. This has nothing to do with temperment or who owns them. It's a very simple fact: big strong dogs with big strong jaws can inflict more damage than little weak dags with weak bites. Again, this has nothing to do with temperament, it has everything to do with capability of causing damage.

Now again, I'm against breed-specific bans. I'm a libertarian; I think I should be able to own a panther if I want.* Those two gay magicians get to afterall. But I wouldn't think my neighbor was unreasonable if he advocated a panther ban. Even if my panther was sweet and nice because I trained him to be sweet and nice, panthers are fucking dangerous.

*I realize that there are differences between dogs, as a species, and big cats. But if we can't draw a line between which breeds of dogs we can and can't own, why can we draw a line between what species of animals in general we can and can't own?
jesusisjustalrightwithme
Friday, May 11, 2007 12:27:43 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Mr. Jesusisjustallrightwithme,
The answer to your question is below. The line keeps getting pushed farther, and farther. Eventually we will not be able to own any animals. If we have the mind set that it is OK to ban some breeds, then it follows that it is OK to ban all breeds. The following breeds of dogs are specifically named in breed specific legislation in venues throughout the USA. Seventy-five breeds that are either restricted, or prohibited from ownership, BUT, it does not stop there it goes on to include any mixed breed dog that contains as an element of its breeding any of these named breeds, that makes the figure grow exponentially. Please note that "pit bull" isn't on the list, that is because it is a catch-all term used as a guise to evoke fear, and to ban many breeds. As a Libertarian does it not make more sense to you that we enact regulations that make the dog owner the responsible party? Was this nation not founded upon the ideal of individual liberty, and individual responsibility?

1.*AIREDALE TERRIER
2.*AKBASH
3.*AKITA
4.*ALAPAHA BLUE BLOOD BULLDOG
5,*ALASKAN MALAMUTE
6.*ALSATIAN SHEPHERD
7.*AMERICAN BULLDOG
8.*AMERICAN HUSKY
9.*AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER
10.*AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER
11.*AMERICAN WOLFDOG
12.*ANATOLIAN SHEPHERD
13.*ARIKARA DOG
14.*AUSTRALIAN CATTLE DOG
15.*AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD
16.*BELGIAN MALINOIS
17.*BELGIAN SHEEPDOG
18.*BELGIAN TURVUREN
19.*BLUE HEELER
20.*BOERBUL
21.*BORZOI
22.*BOSTON TERRIER
23.*BOUVIER DES FLANDRES
24.*BOXER
25.*BULLDOG
26.*BULL TERRIER
27.*BULL MASTIFF
28.*CANE CORSO
29.*CATAHOULA LEOPARD DOG
30.*CAUCASIAN SHEPHERD
31.*CHINESE SHAR PEI
32.*CHOW-CHOW
33.*COLORADO DOG
34.*DOBERMAN PINSCHER
35.*DOGO DE ARGENTINO
36.*DOGUE DE BORDEAUX
37.*ENGLISH MASTIFFS
38.*ENGLISH SPRINGER SPANIEL
39.*ESKIMO DOG
40.*ESTRELA MOUNTAIN DOG
41.*FILA BRASILIERO
42.*FOX TERRIER
43.*FRENCH BULLDOG
44.*GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG
45.*GOLDEN RETRIEVER
46.*GREENLAND HUSKY
47.*GREAT DANE
48.*GREAT PYRANEES
49.*ITALIAN MASTIFF
50.*KANGAL DOG
51.*KEESHOND
52.*KOMONDOR
53.*KOTEZEBUE HUSKY
54.*KUVAZ
55.*LABRADOR RETRIEVER
56.*LEONBERGER
57.*MASTIFF
58.*NEOPOLITAN MASTIFF
59.*NEWFOUNDLAND
60.*OTTERHOUND
61.*PRESA DE CANARIO
62.*PRESA DE MALLORQUIN
63.*PUG
64.*ROTTWEILER
65.*SAARLOOS WOLFHOND
66.*SAINT BERNARD
67.*SAMOYED
68.*SCOTTISH DEERHOUND
69.*SIBERIAN HUSKY
70.*SPANISH MASTIFF
71.*STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER
72.*TIMBER SHEPHERD
73.*TOSA INU
74.*TUNDRA SHEPHERD
75.*WOLF SPITZ
Cherie Graves, chairwoman
Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
http://www.povn.com/rdows



Friday, May 11, 2007 5:34:10 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
You know I guess at this time of the morning I should be sleeping but I am not. Mr. Alrightwithme, if you truly practiced what you preach then you would not feel this hatred for one of God's creatures. Yes, man bred him, but without devine intervention this breed like every other breed out there would not exist. No wait, just because it is a breed of animal that you do not like then it must be Satan's spawn. A nuclear bomb? Give me a break! You sir (or madame) are nothing more than a bigot. Go to the Bible and see what it says about God's animals, love them. I am not asking you to own one of my breed, simply because it is hands like yours that have given my animals the bad reputation that they currently have. If you look back in history you will find that the American Pit Bull Terrier has been a hero, (Sgt. Stubby was the most decorated dog in WWII. A guide, (Helen Keller used at least two as her seeing eye dogs). They have lived at the White House with several of our Presidents, (Rosevelt,Teddy and A. Jackson to name a couple). They have helped save lives, (Dakota was not only at the World Trade Center but also used by NASA to help find the bodies after Challenger, she has also help locate several lost and confused folks wandering in the woods.) They have also taken a bite out of crime (Popsicle made the biggest drug bust in the US to date.) They have saved the lives of their loving familys by giving their own lives to protect those they love, (in FL an APBT jumped between it's young master,3yrs old, and a cotton mouth of unknown age. The dog took the strikes for the child). My own Cactus Jack has stood between me and a Timber Rattler and kept me from a certain death, why? Because he is that loving and loyal.
Maybe we should be looking a little closer at what you are truly asking for. The annihilation of a breed of dogs. This is an all too familiar tactic that is used by Animal Rights folks to end our animal ownership. If they can get rid of one breed of dog today, tomorrow we can add another to the list until there will be no dogs. I have seen the type of arguments that you are using before, Kory Nelson an attorney in Denver CO used and is still using the self same arguments that you are to kill 1400 dogs. 1400 family pets, not killer beasts. 1400 dogs that had no crime against them but their birth. Dog profiling is akin to race profiling. If you are willing to see the world through that narrow tunnel and say all dogs are bad then you will look at humans and say all green folks are bad. Or maybe in your case it would be that all gay folks are bad. I do know how to read and instead of saying the premeir magicians, Sigfried and Roy, you said "those two gay magicians". Your pattern of speach is so very familiar to me, are you sure you do not sleep with Mrs. Nelson?
I have a hard time understanding why anyone who is charged with upholding the Constitution of the US would so blatently abuse it. I do not understand why he would use taxpayer's monies to surf the net and make his biased and radical claims. Just like you Mr. Alright, he is using half truths and misnomers to present his case. Grow up and grow a set of balls and understand that what you are trying to do is NOT alright with Jesus, regardless of how you choose to sign your name.
Sandi Coy
Friday, May 11, 2007 3:00:32 PM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
The American Pit Bull Terrier is a wonderful breed of dog, no doubt about it, but it is being blamed and punished, and vilified for attacks that are done by dogs that are not of any recognized breed. Of all of the attacks that have taken place those that are attributable to a registered, provable breed are to be counted with our fingers. The vast majority of attacks get blamed upon the "pit bull" which first, is not a breed, and second, it is the owner's responsibility to maintain any dog in such a manner as to cause no harm to anyone, or anything.
This issue is not about breeds of dogs, or types of dogs, or dogs of a certain physical appearance, it is all about irresponsible dog owners, and non-responsive animal control, and failure to enforce existing laws. As long as we fail to address, and to fix the real problem we will stupidly blame animals for being, and acting like animals.
Monday, May 14, 2007 9:03:17 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
Cherie,
Like I said above, I am not in favor of breed specific bans at all. Again, I think I should be able to own a panther if I want so long as I am responsiblie for damage it causes. My point was that when the policy reason for the bans is based on a dogs physical strength and capability to do damage, arguing against such bans based on the breed's temperment doesn't hold water. All we're talking about it where the line is and although I would disagree with people that want to draw it between different breeds, I don't think they are bing unreasonable if their reason is based on the animal's capability of causing damage.

Sandi,
Go read what I wrote again. I DO NOT SUPPORT BREED SPECIFIC BANS. I am not advocating anything here. I certainly don't give a crap what your alleged god allegedly says about animals. Dog profiling based on the non-cosmetic physical differences [strength, size, jaw-strength] between breeds is so not akin to race profiling because there are no real non-cosmetic physical differences between races of humans. Sigfried and Roy are gay magicians so I said nothing wrong on that front. I advocate gay rights vigorously so quit pointing your finger in that direction. You are the one using half-truths. You say "we shouldn't ban pit-bulls (for lack of a better term) because they don't have the potential to be dangerous." I say "we shouldn't ban pit-bulls even though they definately do have the potential to be dangerous because we live in a free society."
jesusisjustalrightwithme
Monday, May 14, 2007 11:58:44 AM (Central Daylight Time, UTC-05:00)
If we ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous, that leaves us with nothing, not even our shoelaces. The first thing to go must be the automobile, followed quickly by the baseball bat, my husband's mother, myself, YIKES!!

Laws must be reasonable.

It is not reasonable to write animal behaviors, legal punishments, and criminal labels for animals into statutes that are enacted to structure human society. Animals must not be criminalized under laws that are intended to protect human rights, and to control human behaviors.

It is unreasonable to write animal behavior into laws that no animal has the capacity to understand, answer to, or to function under.

It is unreasonable to mete out criminal labels to animals, i.e. dangerous, or potentially dangerous.

It is unreasonable to proscribe punishments to animals under our laws.

It is unreasonable to remove the human owner from blame, or culpability for the actions of his/her animal(s).

It is unreasonable to assume that every dog of a given breed, or physical appearance will behave in exactly the same manner.

It is unreasonable to assume that every owner of every dog of a given breed, or physical appearance is irresponsible, negligent, or careless with their animal(s).

Human error, carelessness, or negligence is the underlying factor behind every dog attack. Given the actual figures of severe dog attacks, or fatalities related to dog attacks per capita in the United States of America, dogs are not the threat to human life that the sensationalistic media, and urban myth would portray.

Comments are closed.


© Copyright 2008 Nick Schweitzer
Powered By newtelligence dasBlog 1.9.7067.0
Theme Based on Design By maystar