No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog or
vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor shall the local
governing body prohibit the ownership of a particular breed of canine or
canine crossbreed
This is the part of the Virginia Statute on dangerous dogs, it treats each
dog attack case individually and places the responsibility for the attack
on the owner. it's an example of how to do it right.
Most BSLs will list breeds that it prohibits or use the term Pitbull.
Here's the catch, "pitbull" refers only to the American Pitbull terrier.
They do nothing about other so called vicious breeds, and anyone who does
their homework will realize that if they have a Argentine Dogo or a Cane
Courso, or an American Staffordshire terrier, they're off the hook. What
these laws allow is a cruel or uncaring owner to continue to torment and
mistreat any other breed he wants, with little or no penalties.
Scott A. Stewart
REAC/PASS-IT
(202)-475-8875
"G Money" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10/31/2006 09:56 AM
Please respond to cf-community
To: CF-Community <[email protected]>
cc: (bcc: Scott A. Stewart/REAC/HHQ/HUD)
Subject: Re: Sam- I think I know how ya feel.
On 10/31/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm in a debate of sorts on a newspaper board about breed specific
> legislation. For the uninitiated, breed specific legislation is anylaw
> that restricts or prohibits the ownership, breeding etc of dogs based
> soley on breed, it's usually aimed at the pitbull breeds, but can
> sometimes include German Shepard Dogs, Rottweilers, Huskies and Great
> Danes. It's also known as "Dangerous Dog" legislation
Those newspaper boards are tough because they have a small cross section
of
Americans, which basically means a bunch of effin' morons.
What I've tried to present is the stance that
>
> 1) the pitbull breeds where originally bred to guard, not fight
"guarding" vs. "fighting" doesn't necessarily matter, as both mean biting.
Who's to say when a dog thinks it's guarding? Proper training.
2) a properly trained, and cared for pitbull breed, is as trustworthy and
> loving as any other terrier
Yep.
3) Statistically pitbull breeds are less likely to bite than Cocker
> Spaniels, Labs or even Chihuahuas
I've never bought this. Golden retrievers bite more people than any other
breed, because they are the most popular. Are GR's dangerous? Course'
not.
You would need a number that takes population numbers into account.
But i wouldn't put any credence into these numbers anyway. I don't think
they would be statistically significant, nor could they account for the
number of variables that go into the results.
4) breed specific legislation does nothing to solve the problem of dog
> attacks, because the responsibility for the dog and it's training or
lack
> thereof falls on the owner not the breed.
Here's the problem. Breed specific legislation will lower the number of
bites. Why? Because there are fewer dogs. Plain and simple. The breed may
not have mattered at all, but the proponents will say "see, it worked.
Bites
are down, so Breed X must have been the dangerous breed."
Nope. You could have accomplished the same thing by outlawing Spaniels or
Golden Retrievers.
What I've found on this particular board is people who refuse to read/see
> the facts and refuse to present anything to back up their opposing
> viewpoints.
See my first point.
Scott A. Stewart
> REAC/PASS-IT
> (202)-475-8875
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting,
up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four
times a year.
http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:218833
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
