Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban.

Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

DomImus -> Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban. (9/20/2010 2:18:57 PM)
Douglasville, Georgia city council to vote on ban for pit bulls tonight. This is sure to be a well attended and lively council meeting.

AlwaysLisa -> RE: Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban. (9/20/2010 2:53:15 PM)
Hrmmm...I read the ordinance and it doesn't "ban" the breed, but instead puts restrictions on ownership. I'm not sure this is a bad thing. Current pit bull owners would be allowed to keep their dogs, but be required to register them or face a fine of up to $500. If they register the dogs with the city, (which most people do anyway), there is no fine. Those pit bulls would have to be kept indoors, in a covered pen, or behind a fence at least six feet high. Which, if you own a powerful breed should be done anyway. No dog should be allowed to roam freely where it can cause problems. Again, I see nothing wrong with this. Out in public, they'd have to be muzzled. Annoying, perhaps, but not harmful to the dog or owner. I understand people don't like to be singled out and have rules and regulations shoved down their throat, but it's not a ban on the breed. Thanks to a few idiots who have not been responsible dog owners, this is one cities solution to a problem. Could be worse, alot worse. Some places in Europe actually forbid anyone from owning ANY pit type breed, (any dog originally bred for fighting).

LaTigresse -> RE: Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban. (9/20/2010 2:54:24 PM)
I am against a blanket banning of a breed but the words above I can totally support.

JstAnotherSub -> RE: Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban. (9/20/2010 3:05:43 PM)
I just can't see this passing in Douglasville, but I may be wrong. I know several people who live in Douglas county and own pits, but they are not in the city limits. I think the owners should be checked out, as they are the problem with this breed, in my experiences. Of course, the owners are the problem with most ill behaved dogs, but a ferocious chihuahua attack wont make the news. I have known many pit bulls in my life, and I think they are great dogs. That said, if I saw one I did not know running loose in my neighborhood, I wouldnt hesitate to shoot it if it gave any indication of being aggressive. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

soul2share -> RE: Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban. (9/20/2010 3:57:48 PM)
There are no bad dogs, only bad owners. The folks living downstairs from me have a pit, she's very friendly. Of course, she's also being brought up in a house where she's treated as a pet, not a fighting animal. I have known many pits, and they have always been very well-mannered. But I have also seen pits that were used by drug dealers and other scum that were so abused the only thing that could be done was to put them down. I just hope what goes around, comes around. Most of the places around here won't rent to you if you have any large breed in the rottie, pit or doberman breeds. Even German Shepherds......and the few tht do charge exorbitant deposits, and make you carry some sort of insurance or bond to cover any damages or attacks.

DomImus -> RE: Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban. (9/20/2010 4:10:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: soul2share There are no bad dogs, only bad owners. The folks living downstairs from me have a pit, she's very friendly. Of course, she's also being brought up in a house where she's treated as a pet, not a fighting animal. I have known many pits, and they have always been very well-mannered. But I have also seen pits that were used by drug dealers and other scum that were so abused the only thing that could be done was to put them down. I just hope what goes around, comes around. Most of the places around here won't rent to you if you have any large breed in the rottie, pit or doberman breeds. Even German Shepherds......and the few tht do charge exorbitant deposits, and make you carry some sort of insurance or bond to cover any damages or attacks. I'm all for sparing the animals and putting the owners down.

DomImus -> RE: Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban. (9/20/2010 4:12:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlwaysLisa Hrmmm...I read the ordinance and it doesn't "ban" the breed, but instead puts restrictions on ownership. I'm not sure this is a bad thing. Do you have a link to the ordinance? I didn't see one in the story. I actually heard about this story last night on the local news radio station. They are reporting that current owners could keep their animals with certain caveats but no new pit bull ownership would be allowed.

AlwaysLisa -> RE: Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban. (9/20/2010 4:27:23 PM)
Hi DomImus, I'm looking for the ordinance myself...lol If they don't word it correctly, the whole thing will get dismissed (like it did in several other major cities). I would like to see if they have a stipulation regarding new ownership. Will let you know when I find it. :)

AlwaysLisa -> RE: Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban. (9/20/2010 4:50:16 PM)
After an exhausting search, I have found several articles that state tonight it is simply a proposal to draft an ordinance, one has not been written as of yet. If anyone has located the actual ordinance, please share :) I need to get off this computer! I also found, unfortunately, that in the proposal, according to the news articles, it IS a ban. They are including the phrase, "no new dogs", only those that currently have a dog in the Pit family, are allowed to keep them. Since PitBull is not a specifically recognized breed, it encompasses any breed designed and bred for fighting. I'm curious, if that will extend to the SharPei, or Tibetian Mastiffs, or any of the many breeds who aren't your more commonly known, but are fighting dogs nonetheless. I would bet they haven't thought it through and it won't get a passing vote tonight.

WyldHrt -> RE: Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban. (9/20/2010 6:33:56 PM)
quote: Those pit bulls would have to be kept indoors, in a covered pen, or behind a fence at least six feet high. Which, if you own a powerful breed should be done anyway. No dog should be allowed to roam freely where it can cause problems. Again, I see nothing wrong with this. Out in public, they'd have to be muzzled. Annoying, perhaps, but not harmful to the dog or owner. Actually, what they have found in places that have tried this is that these restrictions and bans can actually cause more attacks rather than fewer. The reason is that in areas with very restrictive BSL or breed bans (Ohio springs immediately to mind), the restrictions make it difficult for the dogs to be properly socialized. There is little more dangerous than a dog who has been in a single area/ kennel/ yard for its entire life and not properly socialized with humans. When (not if) such a dog gets loose, it is an attack waiting to happen. Breed bans do not reduce the number of bad owners. People who have no business owning a dog in the first place simply move on to another breed or blow off the law altogether, other than keeping their dogs out of sight and unsocialized. BSL is extremely expensive to enforce, and most places simply don't have the budget for animal control to follow up on the bazillion 'pit bull' sightings these laws generate (most of the ones that are followed up on turn out to be another breed). Which brings up another point, mistaken identity. Anyone remember the Diane Whipple case? The dogs involved were perro de presa canarios, which are not related to the APBT at all; yet it was all over the news for weeks that 'pit bulls' had killed this woman. It was evident from the first pics of the dogs that they were not pit bulls, but many people see a brindle coat and cropped ears and assume. I had a beautiful female pit bull, tan and white with uncropped ears, and very few people even recognized her breed when we were out and about. My friend, who had a presa canario, got comments about her 'pit bull' every time she left the house with him. It was great fun when we were out together to have random people inform us that we didn't know the breeds of dogs we owned, as it was obvious that her 130lb presa was a 'pit bull' and my 60lb APBT (she was large for her breed) was a 'mutt of some kind'. rolls eyes Even the ASPCA thinks BSL is a bad idea: http://www.aspca.org/fight-animal-cruelty/dog-fighting/breed-specific-legislation.html

servantforuse -> RE: Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban. (9/20/2010 7:47:22 PM)
Most home owners insurance policies have much higher premiums when you own certain breeds of dogs. There is a reason for that.

WyldHrt -> RE: Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban. (9/20/2010 11:07:01 PM)
quote: There is a reason for that. Yes, there is.... but it may not be what you think.

DomImus -> RE: Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban. (9/21/2010 6:27:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyldHrt Breed bans do not reduce the number of bad owners. I'm of the opinion that nothing can really be done about this issue. Bans are not the answer since they require compliance among dog owners and most of the folks I see out walking these dogs don't look like lawfulness is high on their short list of aspirations. I guess it's just live and let live and hope you don't get mauled.

LaTigresse -> RE: Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban. (9/21/2010 6:47:44 AM)
I think it will always be a case of, the conscientious and responsible will always be conscientious and responsible, and the rest will continue playing the odds. Sometimes those odds involve the injury or death of innocent parties. Whether it be other animals or human beings. I think we all know, or have known, irresponsible dog owners. People that should not have a dog, or the type of dog they do. But how many of us know people that readily admit they are irresponsible dog owners? It is much like bad driving. Always someone else.

AlwaysLisa -> RE: Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban. (9/21/2010 8:04:07 AM)
Reminds me of gun control. Do they really think the drug runners and gang bangers will give up their weapons? No, it will be the law abiding folks, following the letter of the law. So, who will wind up with all the guns? Banning one breed will not stop the dog fighting, nor will it curb the irresponsible from turning allowing their dogs to roam or breed at random. The only ones affected will be the families with cherished pets who want to comply with the law. While, as it was presented in the article, I don't feel the proposal to be asking for any more then what most people do anyway, I don't agree with the concept. It won't work. I hear they are already creating a "new" breed for fighting.. crossing the large mastiff type breeds with established pit dogs. The ordinance will be useless in the target of pit breeds before it gets written. But thats what happens...tell someone something is forbidden, they move on to another choice. It won't stop the problem until we stop the people. Wyldhart, I agree about socializing, however, they did not forbid dogs from being socialized among people in the proposal, only that they be muzzled. The caring, well schooled dog owner will do the right thing, it's the ones who don't give a crap that we need to address. I understand they are frustrated and are trying to reach the irresponsible few, but their methods will target the wrong folks. People who fight dogs or breed for aggressive temperments to further their profit, will only find another breed, or make one themselves. What is so ludicrous about banning is that half of the fighting breeds included in the list of "pit" breeds, don't fight any longer and haven't for quite some time. I hope I am correct in my faith, that people in these areas will succeed in stopping the ordinance at grass roots level.

JstAnotherSub -> RE: Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban. (9/21/2010 8:50:30 AM)
http://www.gpb.org/news/2010/09/20/city-delays-vote-on-pit-bull-ban http://www.wsbtv.com/news/25093342/detail.html They delayed the vote, as expected.

WyldHrt -> RE: Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban. (9/21/2010 8:29:12 PM)
I agree with most of what you said, but have to respond to the following: quote: Wyldhart, I agree about socializing, however, they did not forbid dogs from being socialized among people in the proposal, only that they be muzzled. Therein lies the problem, Lisa. For the dog, being muzzled and then taken out to 'socialize' is very much like a human being taken to a party full of strangers and having their hands tied behind their back just before entering. How safe and social would that human feel going into a party that way, especially if people kept coming up to them and touching them without permission? What if the person was required to have their hands tied every time they left the house? This is what I meant about restrictions like muzzles preventing proper socialization. In order to socialize an animal, the animal must feel safe. When it comes to dogs, the muzzle makes them almost completely helpless and they know it. Some dogs will be ok with this, particularly if they are bonded to and have complete trust in their handler; others will go into a bad headspace the moment the muzzle goes on. Taking a dog that is feeling uncertain and completely vulnerable out and expecting them to be sociable with strangers is just ridiculous, and the results can be tragic. One of the worst things, outside of intentional physical abuse, that I've ever seen happen to a dog was 'forced socialization'. The dog in question, a very nice and mostly mannerly lab mix, was starting to show signs of dog aggression. The idiot 'trainer' convinced the equally stupid owner that the way to 'cure' dog aggression was to muzzle this poor dog and let him 'interact' (off leash) with the rest of the dogs in the class. I tried to stop it; I really did. What followed was horrid. The dog, whose aggression was fear based in the first place, was completely terrified at being made helpless then 'abandoned' by his owner/protector. The other dogs were all over him, he was trying to get away, and the 'trainer' kept saying, "Look, they're making friends". I wanted to slap the shit out of her. As expected (at least I expected it)... when the muzzle came off, the dog went completely apeshit, snapping and lunging at the other dogs. I have no doubt that he would have killed one if it got close enough. This is no different than what often happens when you mix muzzle laws with well intentioned but uneducated dog owners. The dogs are muzzled and forced to interact with either other animals or strange humans, particularly children who may not ask before touching, grabbing, or even jumping on them. The dog learns from these experiences... but not the lesson intended. Few people seem to understand the repercussions of muzzle laws. They are this- When the muzzle comes off, all bets are off.

WyldHrt -> RE: Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban. (9/21/2010 9:09:17 PM)
~FR to the thread in general~ Oh and by the way, over 90% of fatal dog attacks, regardless of breed, involve an intact male. I wonder if that should factor in when cities and other municipalities consider BSL as a solution to dog bite issues... nah! [8\|]

SorceressJ -> RE: Georgia city to vote on pit bull ban. (9/21/2010 9:34:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus I'm all for sparing the animals and putting the owners down. Ditto this.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875