Regarding banning pit bulls... I am quite certain there are state laws that prohibit banning dogs based on a specific breed, so the city would not be able to implement such a ban without changing state law first. That's because, as noted, not all pit bulls are viscious, not all Rottweilers are aggressive.We can't discriminate be breed. There are, however, specific criteria that will designate a "dangerous dog," and a dog of any breed can receive that designation if it has demonstrated specific behaviors. I believe this is implemented through Minneapolis Animal Control. If a dog is found to be a "dangerous dog," the owner is then expected to take precautions to protect the public from the dog, like wearing a muzzle when it is out in public, or maintaining a fence that is a certain height in the yard, for example. If these practices are not followed, the dog could ultimately be taken from the owner. This process is not an easy one, however, and must be supported by facts, witnesses, etc. The truth is, there are very few "bad dogs" and unfortunately, far too many bad owners. When dogs are neglected, abused, or trained to be aggressive, both the dogs and the general public end up paying the price. And who owns these dogs? Probably people who have been neglected, abused, and trained to be aggressive. The solution here is far more complicated than simply banning a certain breed of dog. Jean Johnson East Harriet --- phaedrus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A few days ago I knew little to nothing about pit > bulls, but a guy who lives a few houses down owns > two > of them and they're really nice dogs, so the idea of > banning the breed felt really off to me. > > I did send a private email to the original author > but > since the is still going with a fair amount of > support, I spent some time and did some research > which > ended up reinforcing my opinions. > > In > http://www.mnforum.org/pipermail/mpls/2002-August/015828.html > - - - Chris B. wrote (excerpt) - - - > First, let's blow a fallacy out of the water: > There seems to be an unspoken, rather naive faith > in the syllogism that because dogs make good pets > and pit bulls are dogs, pit bulls therefore make > good pets. > - - - end excerpt - - - > > That would be a fallacy if that were the thought > process taken. > > The reason I believe that pit bulls can make good > pets > is I know pit bulls who are good pets. The two pits > that live a few doors down from me are great dogs > and > a lot of fun to play with and watch play. They're > socialized and well behaved, the owner keeps them on > a > leash or indoors, and they are no more prone to an > unprovoked attack than any other dog. > > Am I more careful with them than I would be with a > beagle? Yes, just like I'm more careful with a dog > than with a cat - if they get nervous or angry, they > can do more damage. I'm also more careful around > cars > than around bicycles. > > That's part of the reason why pit bulls are so > focused > on - due to their strength, if they attack, they are > easily able to cause major injury or death. > Additionally, they have become popular with people > who > tend to want a dog for intimidation purposes (often > these people will also intentionally mistreat the > dog > to make them mean). Rottweilers have suffered from > similar unethical treatment. > > While doing research, I came across something called > the American Temperament Test Society which > evaluates > canine temperament and has statistics by breed. > Failure is recognized when a dog shows unprovoked > aggression, panic without recovery, or strong > avoidance. American Pit Bull Terriers and American > Staffordshire Terrier (two of the more common pit > bull > breeds) were both heavily tested and passed 82.x% of > the time beating Australian Shepherds, Beagles, > Border > Collies, Bull Dogs, Chihuahuas, Cocker Spaniels, > Dalmatians, German Shepherds, Golden Retrievers, > Pomeranians, and Toy Poodles among many more. > (http://www.atts.org/stats1.html) > > - - - Chris B. wrote (excerpt) - - - > Concerning the claim that if we banned pit bulls, > we should in turn ban dobermans, rottweilers, etc, > or God help us, that we can't ban pits bulls > because we don't even really know what a pit bull > is - this is nothing but a silly rhetorical shell > game. The CDC seems to have no trouble telling us > which breed leads statistically in the number of > attacks on human beings. (No guesses there!) > - - - end excerpt - - - > > Based on my research, it's not so cut and dry. > > According to dog-bite-law-center.com, 44% of > reported > dog bites are from German Shepherds. The CDC > researched dog-bite-related fatalities. Between 1979 > and 1996, Pit Bulls did account for the highest > number > of fatalities (60 in the United States over the 17 > years), but it is interesting to note that in the > final years of the study (1993 - 1996), Rottweilers > accounted for more than Pit Bulls did (20 were from > Rottweilers and 8 were from pit bulls). > (http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm) > > Incidently, I've been randomly attacked by unleashed > dogs twice. Both were Shepherds. > > As to what a Pit Bull is, I believe there are six > breeds that are commonly considered Pit Bulls. > Boston > Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, > Miniature Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire > Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The American > Pit > Bull Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier are > the most commonly thought of Pit Bulls. > > - - - Chris B. wrote (excerpt) - - - > So, given the odds, anybody care to wager the house > payment on what kind of dog will be cited next > time there's a local report about a canine attack? > - - - end excerpt - - - > > Well, I'd guess a animal control/police report would > be more factually significant than a media report. > I'm > not a gambling man, but for a fatal attack, I'd put > 50 > cents on it being a Rottweiler. For a non-fatal > attack, I'd put a dollar on it being a German > Shepherd. > > Of course, German Shepherds and Rottweilers are > among > the best large dogs available for pets. > > The breeds that the CDC considers highest risk are > Pit > Bulls, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Huskies, > Alaskan > Malamutes, Doberman Pinschers, Chow Chow, Great > Danes, > St. Bernards and Akitas. > > Are you going to ban all of them? > > Additionally, in attacks leading to fatalities, > there > is an 8 out of 10 chance that a biting dog is male. > (Humane Society of the United States.) > > Maybe we should just ban males... > > In > http://www.mnforum.org/pipermail/mpls/2002-August/015838.html > - - - Emilie Q. wrote (excerpt) - - - > > I'd rather see a "One bite and you're out" law > > for animals. One bite should result in > euthanasia. > - - - end excerpt - - - > > While some dog bites come from animals that are > truly > viscous, there are cases where it is a situation > where > the animal is nervous and/or was not being properly > handled by the owner. Under the (im)proper > circumstances, almost any animal will attack a > person. > Typically, this is a situation where the animal > feels > that it, it's family, or it's territory are > threatened. > > I had a dog when I was a kid - great little > beagle/springer spaniel/mutt. He bit people twice. > The > first one was me. Lesson learned - don't put your > face > by the dog and shake him awake when he's having a > bad > dream (let sleeping dogs lie). The second time was > when he growled at a guy getting too near his donut > (in our yard) and the guy kicked him. The guy got > what > he deserved. In neither case did the dog do anything > outside of what dogs do. > > I couldn't support a blanket rule like suggested. In > a > case where someone doesn't know how to deal with > animals and the animal is not being out of line, the > animal should not be put down. If you have a > dangerous > animal that attacks unprovoked, then it should be > prevented from being able to hurt anyone else. This > may require euthanasia, but I've met enough dogs > that > have been "rescued" to think that often the solution > is simply getting the animal out of the situation. > They'll always have triggers (often boots or rolled > papers or something like that), but as long as the > person taking responsibility for them is aware of > this, the animal should be fine. > > The answer is going after the people who through > === message truncated ===
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
