Mayor wants Ban on Pit Bulls in Marion County? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Mayor wants Ban on Pit Bulls in Marion County?


pupcuss27
05-31-2007, 16:40
I heard on the news today, Indy Mayor Bart Peterson, wants a ban on Pit Bulls. The newcasters in Indy have really gone to the "E.R's on all dog bites recently". They have centered their attention on childeren that have been bitten and now ALL OWNERS of Pit Bulls must pay the debts of a few stupid dog owners. These people keep their dogs teathered to a stake in their "trailer parks" or downtown, never training the dog which does make for a mean dog. The other group of stupid people, let their children wander around, approaching strange tied up dogs and do obviously get bit, somethimes very seriously. It's not the Dogs fault, it's the Stupid human's fault and the Stupid parent's fault that children in INDY are being hurt. This breed can be wild, any miss handled dog will bite. Anyone who watchs the National Geographic Channel know's Daddy. Daddy is Ceasar Millan's favorite Pit Bull in his pack and takes Daddy on his roadtrips to help train Dog owners in need of his help. This breed can be wonderful in the right owners hands.

I'm a new member to your forum (Pupcuss27) to define my "user name", I call the gooy film left on the Patio Door window by my dog's nose PUPCUSS. Only a spray bottle of Vinigar & Water (1-12) and several balls of newspaper to scrubb with will take the goo off. Windex and other commercial cleaners can't beat this method to clean off pupcuss...

Sorry for being so long-winded, but a Ban on a Breed of Dog's really hit a nerve with me.

My dog is not a Pit by the way. Check the "Lighter Side Forum". I like to post there.

Pupcuss27 - 10-42

FThorn
05-31-2007, 20:13
after a pit bull bit me last year, my first dog bite ever having had many dogs myself, I personally will feel no sympathy for the dogs. I have no animosity towards them either, mind you.

Loucks
05-31-2007, 22:20
The whole thing is pretty ridiculous. Banning the breed is overkill. Some people do mistreat their animals and fail to train them to behave, but to penalize all pits is standard kneejerk "Look! I'm doing something!" politicking.

That said, I'm a cat owner. :supergrin:

Rikki
06-01-2007, 05:06
I don't think banning the breed is overkill- look, there are plenty of animals and stuff you can't keep in towns and cities w/o permits or registrations- adding pit bulls to the list will just make the waters more muddy for us all -that's all..ie: he's Not a pit bull, not a real one anyway, his daddy was a 99% wolf!-See? No pit bull here!
The legislation Indy put in place last time on the 'dog issue' sure has put the fear of God into the pit bull owners- bites are waaay down.(not)More legislation will certainly work.

R. Emmelman
06-01-2007, 05:48
OK! You hit a hot button. :steamed:

Most all dogs have some characteristic bread into them. My Greyhound by nature is the gentlest dog on the face of the earth, but they were bread to hunt game. 5,000+ years of breeding can not be undone and when she sees “game” nothing can stop her short of a high fence or lead. (Some Greyhounds are not “child safe” as they look at a small child as “game”) Pit bulls are powerful aggressive dogs bread for farm work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_Bull This being said, the temperament of the pit bull does have a direct bearing on the treatment and training. All dogs can be aggressive and dangerous if not properly trained and handled.

Now for my hot button.


/rant on

If an owner wants to keep a pit bull, then fine. If he is willing to accept the responsibility for the safety of himself or his family let him. However when a pit bull (or ANY dog) is allowed to run loose then that changes the picture. Herein lays my complaint. Just try to get assistance form animal control in a reasonable time. Several times my neighbor’s dogs have gotten loose and as long as they have not bitten someone animal control might show up within the next day or two. As far as weekends or after hours forget it! If the Mayor wants to prevent these animals from being a problem then enforce the already established ordinance in a timely fashion. Once again the problem is not with the legitimate owner but the enforcement of the laws against those who break them.

/rant off

HoosierShooter
06-01-2007, 06:05
I am amazed by this. My grandmother of 78 years has owned pit bulls all of her life, currently owns two Westminster champs, and ever since I was a small child have been around pits. It's the people that are not responsible enough to properly train these dogs. I have had Rotties also and sometimes you have to take them to school 2-3 times to get their behavior to what I consider proper. Our pits and rotties have always been of very good temper, but we trained them properly. I let my rot play with my young son when he couldn't walk and they got along great, never any aggression... now try to break into the house and you may loose a limb as they are very protective. It is a shame that some, many people get a dog and don't train it in any way and some don't even treat them even close to proper and then wonder why the dogs are aggressive.

It is my belief that it is the owner's, not the dog(for the most part).

R. Emmelman
06-01-2007, 06:19
Just to add on to my rant....

What is it with these people who get a dog only to pen it up outside! Why have it in the first place. The people across the street have two pit bulls in a kennel in their back yard. Minimal dog/human contact I am sure. Not to mention this adds absolutly no value to guarding the home.

RANT RANT RANT !!!!!!

IPDBrad
06-01-2007, 07:46
Okay, so we ban pitbulls in Indy. Then the problem owners start raising Rots for fighting, do we ban those dogs. Say we do, then the next dog of choice becomes German Shepards, do we ban them then....

HoosierShooter
06-01-2007, 08:26
Originally posted by R. Emmelman
Just to add on to my rant....

What is it with these people who get a dog only to pen it up outside! Why have it in the first place. The people across the street have two pit bulls in a kennel in their back yard. Minimal dog/human contact I am sure. Not to mention this adds absolutly no value to guarding the home.

RANT RANT RANT !!!!!!

That p!sses me off too!

R. Emmelman
06-01-2007, 08:55
Originally posted by IPDBrad
Okay, so we ban pitbulls in Indy. Then the problem owners start raising Rots for fighting, do we ban those dogs. Say we do, then the next dog of choice becomes German Shepards, do we ban them then....
My Greyhound can be every bit as vicious. I know, I have the scars to show it... :rofl:

Moral of the story, don't try to take a bone away from a possesive Grey without gloves!

boilergonzo
06-01-2007, 13:37
I worked for years in a vet clinic. I hate laws aimed at breeds. Laws are for humans (and they should be accountable for their dog's actions). Pit bulls, while certainly capable of inflicting great harm, are not evil, and may have great dispositions (and I am pulling a "media" and lumping Stafforshire Terriers, etc., all into the same American pit bull group). Many other breeds are also big and strong (and Chow-chows, Sharpei, Akita's, etc. also have been breed with fighting in mind). There are only a few breeds that caused the vets and folks like me to be on full alert (Chows, cocker spaniels, and chihuahua's chomped on me more than "pit bulls"). My worst bite was from a former police doberman that had later been abused and was agressive.


First it was German Shepherds, then Dobies, then Rotties, now pit bulls. The criminal element wants the intimidating dog of the day. I will nominate the Rhodesian Ridgeback as a potential future tough-dog-de-jour (they were bred to hunt lions, so they have some street cred...).

Don't support the ban of dogs based on looks. It makes as much sense as a ban on guns based on evil appearance...

If someone could put my Scottish Terrier's brain in a pit bull, THEN you'd have a serious fighting dog! Great with kids and people, but convinced she is the toughest dog in the world and not afraid to prove it! Call Michael Vick...

mitchshrader
06-01-2007, 13:49
ya can't ban a breed for aggression, the breed didn't buy a dog and not tend it.

if you're going to ban OUTSIDE dogs, that's one thing.. or dogs off leashes, or dogs chained, or dogs mistreated by owners or a whole LOT of things, including ALL dogs, may be banned without addressing breed.

whether or not such a ban would be appropriate is up to the citizens of that locale, not me.

but to address a problem BY BREED is ludicrous.

what, a mongrel isn't dangerous?

either the offense is attributed to the owner, or the owner has no rights of ownership.

if you have a shotgun with a hair trigger, and it goes off accidently and shoots out my plate glass window, the damage doesn't change if it's a winchester or a remington.

the damage isn't the shotguns fault.

address the issue. if a dog is a social problem, the OWNER is a social problem. i will accept prison terms for assault, maiming, murder.. for those whose dogs commit such crimes. it's the owners fault. if my kid is killed by your winchester, your protests it never happened before won't work. really really really won't work at all.

do what you want to, pay what it costs.

minuteman32
06-01-2007, 18:53
Originally posted by R. Emmelman
My Greyhound can be every bit as vicious. I know, I have the scars to show it... :rofl:

Moral of the story, don't try to take a bone away from a possesive Grey without gloves!

Cool! Another Greyhound owner! I have 2, myself. 1 male & 1 female.:thumbsup:

Tim-G19
06-01-2007, 22:26
Fighting pits are killed if human aggression is shown. When dog fighting was legal in this country is was very very rare for either the handler or the ref. to be bitten even while seperating the dogs.

If the dog is trained correctly for the breed and socialized pits are gentle giants. If they are not socialized and pain is used as a deterant then you have problems.

Its on par with the weapon bans to me, they ban weapons from behind a desk because of traits and looks mostly. When a wood clad rifle/gun of the same caliber does the same damage. It is up to the owner responsibly own Guns/Dogs/Cars etc. . Doesnt it bother you how the news throws assault weapon, or Semi-auto or the like into a story? Shooting and Dog bites are tragedies, But theres a person behind the dog just like the guns or the wheel.

A very small percentage of dog bite cases are reported to begin with,
and on top of that our media cant resist a pitbull attack, So its rare to see a cocker spaniel bite mentioned, even if reported to police or Animal Control.

The last attack I heard of was the little girl bitten on the arm and dragged by the Pitbull. I watched several reports about it, and only 1 news broadcast reported that the Dog was being watched by her family. Both her parents and the Dog owner should be charged with Child endangerment at the very least, and the dog be put down.
and the Adults involved should be banned from animal ownership as well.

My "Kimber" a 10 month old pit has been socialized and been trained
and is probly the best behaved and mannered dog Ive owned.

These recent Dog bites have been horrible should never have happened, But theres a person/persons to blame behind the dogs. and Indiana has to catch up with other states on banning violator from animal ownership. Just like felons and guns.


1 last thing and Im done. I took my wife to the Animal control shelter in Johnson county before we got our dog. She hadnt owned a dog and I wanted her to see dangerous dogs, I explained how the dogs barking didnt worry me, but the poor beasts who never knew a kind human hand cowering in the corner did. I am convinced that its 95% owner and the other 5 bad dogs.

Breed Specific Legislation against Pitbulls will lead to others, Rotties, mastiffs, German Shepards, or Legislation banning Glocks because a string of shootings by them. its a slippery slope and I hope that gun owners who dont like dogs can see it.



Stop BSL.

piercedjp
06-02-2007, 10:23
This is a hot topic for me as well, considering I own a pit bull. I also own a doberman, a coon hound, and a shepherd mix. The way a dog acts is completely controlable, and we have worked with all of our dogs to teach them how to behave correctly. The mayor would be better served directing funds to Animal Control then trying to ban any certain breed of dog. In fact, truth be told, dog bites are actually DOWN from there levels this time last year, but the media seems to be running with this issue more for some reason. If they decide to ban pit bulls, they better be willing to kick my door in in the middle of the night and take my dog, or else they are not going to like the response they get to the request. By the way, the dogs do know what to do if someone kicks the door in in the middle of the night, so even that would not be well advised.

mpholic
06-04-2007, 07:13
Originally posted by mitchshrader
ya can't ban a breed for aggression,

Wanna bet? They can do anything we let them do? Don't like the idea? Contact a city councilman and speak your mind?

They can ban certain breeds just like they can ban or restrict certain types of guns.

Full auto weapons require special permits, silencers require special permits, short barrels require special permits. Why not certain breeds?

No short barreled, silenced gun ever jumped out of its case and starting shooting people but they are still restricted. Why would the politicians look at the dog issue any differently. Common sense does not prevail in the political machine, that is left up to the voters.