BSL Laws.

[ayb2101]

I'd only recently heard about BSL laws. I've been thinking about them a lot lately. You may or may not agree with this, but here are some points I've come up with for a realistic approach:

--A good share of the population thinks that "dangerous" breeds should be banned. A breed being "dangerous" means that there is a good chance that it will attack someone. News reports say that people get attacked by them fairly often. So, why let people have "dangerous" breed? Banning them would be a relatively straightforward and inexpensive method to prevent people from getting attacked by "dangerous" beeds. Sounds good!

So the population will typically want a "dangerous" breed ban. Trying to prevent the bans directly will likely have little effect. Representatives don't want to be known as the person who let people keep their "dangerous killing machines".

--The real flaw lies in what is a "dangerous" breed. The fact is, that pitbulls, rotties, and GSDs are NOT these "dangerous" breeds that people have been told about per-se. From the above point, with only the knowledge of this generic "dangerous" breed, BSL laws seem good, even to many dog owners. When the media profiles specific breeds as a "dangerous" breed, the laws also carry over.

The problem is meerly the breeds reputation. You can't just make people think otherwise. In their opinions, these breeds must be bad "because the TV said it". Countering the large media corporations views would be very hard to do. Especially once people have doubts.

--WHY do these breeds have this reputation to begin with? If it is because of bad owners and/or breeders, restrictions on the breeders or owners getting the dog to begin with might be in order. This could be a simple interview. I know its not ideal, but it might be the best idea, creating a balance between the people who are pro-BSL and anti-BSL. Its better than having the pro-BSL win outright, and would also help change their opinions about the breed, provided it actually reduced the attacks to 0.

There is a chance with any dog, no matter how unlikely, that they will attack someone. Unfortunately, opinion matters, and even the slightest statistic speaks. People don't really think much about the breeds in question, but only the problem they perceive. Its simply a stereotype. They know little about the pitbulls, rottweilers, and GSDs, except what they've heard in the paper, and no sensible reporter writes stories about the other dogs that DIDN'T attack. Where's the money in doing THAT? Accusations are front page, retractions are last. Its just a fact. The most you could hope for would be a 1:1 balance.

What I suggest is fully focusing anti-BSL effort on lesser, alternative, laws to appease the public without banning any breeds, and teaching the public the truth about these breeds, rather than the assumed problem, following a multi-step strategy. Again, its not perfect, but its a step in the right direction, and would allow continued action, one step at a time, without the pitfalls of a more direct approach.

[gooeydog]

I think if it were that simple, anti BSL people would be all over that kind of legislation.... but it's not. If the irresponsible breeders/owners aren't even capable of following simple laws that are in place now, what makes you think they would follow new regulations put on pit bulls and their owners? In addition.... obviously BSL itself hasn't done much to stop the problem... only drove the newly illegal dogs and their owners underground... so if that drastic of a measure hasn't gotten rid of the bad owners.... then why would simple restrictions do that? As is always the case, the people who abide by the rules will suffer (their dogs, too), and the ones responsible for the problems will continue on as they wish. Rather than passing new restrictions to punish responsible owners and their dogs, why not simply enforce the (more than adequate) generic dog laws already in effect? I'd bet that in 98% of places that are planning to or have passed BSL have these laws already... leash laws, dog licensing laws, and generic vicious dog laws (that proclaim a dog vicious after one incident of aggression, and place restrictions on dog/owner), among others. It seems that a good amount of dogs that cause problems are running loose.... the leash law would fix those cases. How many dogs that attack people are registered??? If they're not, then why haven't the owners already been fined and/or the dog(s) confiscated??? How many of the dogs have already had an incident of aggression? And if the government can't even enforce these simple laws (that are in effect now), why should we even think for a second that they could enforce a (much more complicated) law that involved various level of restriction for dog owners/breeders? I'd have few problems with soemthing like this if it would actually work, but otherwise it's just another step in legislating away my rights to own a dog of the breed I choose.

[courtnek]

OK, my take (rant, that is)

ANY dog can bite - the little chihauhau next door could remove a finger - and tries to whenever he gets the chance. He cant seriously hurt anybody,
so he's not a "dangerous" dog.

These dog problems happen in stages. In the 70's the GSD was popular - guess what? more bite incidences. The I-Dont-Care breeders cross and inbred them, to make more dogs to make more money. The dogs were then unstable, misbred and usually mistreated.

in the 80's it was the Rottwieler - same story

in the 90's it was the Doberman - same story

today it is the Pit Bull...the dog is animal aggressive but people friendly -
however, any dog can be trained or mistreated into people hostility.
Banning the dog wont stop the problem, the criminals and macho morons
will just choose another breed to pump up their egos...

and on that note - we have a Golden Retriever in town (likes everybody - excellent with kids) who bit off half of a childs face. He is permanently scarred....it's NOT THE DOG.... the owners need to take responsibility
for what their dogs do, for training them, for treating them decently.....

There are gun laws that say that you are responsible for any damage
your gun causes....I believe the same thing should be applied to dogs.
Responsible owners wont have issues. The idiots will...

If your dog is trained, socialized. respected and treated decently, unless he has a breeding or neurological disorder, he is NOT going to be a problem. Make the OWNERS RESPONSIBLE, NOT THE DOG. He is just a victim of circumstances.

:o

[ayb2101]

Honestly, the only dogs I've ever had try to bite me were under 30lbs. There was a toy-poodle owned by a friends grandparents that was REALLY agressive to strangers. It would try to bite you if you got too close to it, and if you didn't, it would try to run after you and bite you. I don't know if they had raised it badly or not.

My uncle used to have a rottweiler which was very playful and nice with visitors, and loved to chase a flashlight beam around the room. In general, the bigger dogs tend to be more calm and seem to have a much better understanding of whether someone is a threat or not. I've never been sure why this is.

Interestingly, the issue is very much like gun control laws, expect that:
a) A just because they CAN doesn't mean a dog is designed to attack people. It would be more like a law banning pipes because they could be used as gun barrels. Granted, this is a BIG difference.
b) Hopefully, the gun owner would never become emotionally attached to his gun, meaning that the laws would be easier on the owners. A gun owner isn't going to become extremely sad and depressed because someone took his gun away. Unfortunately, the law doesn't care about this kind of thing.

[mouseatthebusstop]

ANY dog can bite - the little chihauhau next door could remove a finger - and tries to whenever he gets the chance. He cant seriously hurt anybody,
so he's not a "dangerous" dog.

any dog could bite :( does this mean no one can keep a dog :( ban them all :(

[courtnek]

Interestingly, the issue is very much like gun control laws, expect that:
a) A just because they CAN doesn't mean a dog is designed to attack people. It would be more like a law banning pipes because they could be used as gun barrels. Granted, this is a BIG difference.
b) Hopefully, the gun owner would never become emotionally attached to his gun, meaning that the laws would be easier on the owners. A gun owner isn't going to become extremely sad and depressed because someone took his gun away. Unfortunately, the law doesn't care about this kind of thing.

exactly my point, thanks.

Gun laws and dog laws (and I own both, I target shoot for sport) are
very similar - bottom line - if your dog bites someone (because you let it run loose, because you knew it was aggressive and didnt control it, etc)
then YOU are responsible for the damages to the person that got
bitten. In the same thread, if you leave your gun lying around loaded
where a child or another adult can get it and shoot someone, YOU are responsible.

The only difference is that in 99% of the gun cases, the owner is prosecuted and heavily fined, or put on trial. In the case of dog bites,
it's the dog who gets punished, and not the irresponsible owner.

I agree with the earlier thread that if the govt would enforce the
already-in-existence multitudes of laws, the macho idiots and criminals
would be harder put to own and mistreat dogs.

and I agree that an interview should be done with anyone attempting to
own a "dangerous" breed dog, and if the new owner is obviously not
aware of the problems he could have with the dog, or the dogs natural characterstics, then training should be required, not optional. While
that may seem intrusive to some people, it would keep the majority
of the unknowing either from getting the dog, or from not training and socializing it correctly.

Just my take....