All pitbulls in Denver to be killed.

Flyingcursor · Post by **Flyingcursor** » Wed May 11, 2005 9:18 am

Story here:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/n ... 97,00.html

Discuss?

OnTheMoor · Post by **OnTheMoor** » Wed May 11, 2005 9:21 am

Strange, I know there is a pitbull ban in Ontario now, but it does not involve killing off the current population if I have the details right. Existing pitbulls need to wear a muzzle and other safety precautions.

Dazzle1 · Post by **Dazzle1** » Wed May 11, 2005 9:27 am

I tend to find it's mainly bad owners not dogs.

In the UK we had a vast increase a while ago of Staffordshire bull crosses which were similar to the Pitbull. Many were goaded by owners to display aggressive tendencies. Muzzle restrictions were introduced for those that were deemed to be a "pitbull".

D

GaryKelly · Post by **GaryKelly** » Wed May 11, 2005 9:31 am

We had pit-bull hysteria over here a number of years ago, which resulted in the 'dangerous dogs Act'.

Whenever the press wages a campaign against *anything* to sell their miserable chip-wrappings, politicians seem automatically to accept tabloid ravings as "majority public opinion" and act immediately, irrespective of what the true public opinion might be.

That's the power of the 'free press' these days. That and the fact that politicians these days are, in the main, characterless invertebrates who'll believe whatever they read in The Sun. It's why a chinless television "celebrity" chef can make 'school dinners' a hot issue on every party's manifesto in the weeks leading up to a General Election.

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Wed May 11, 2005 9:32 am

In Oklahoma, cockfighting was legal till a couple or so years ago. It wasn't legal to gamble on it, but it was legal to fight them. It was made a "state question" on the ballot, whether to outlaw it. A television campaign was waged against it, and cockfighting was outlawed. As soon as it was passed, they ordered that all fighting cock breeds in the state be killed by Friday.

Random notes · Post by **Random notes** » Wed May 11, 2005 9:58 am

I've volunteered with a Humane Society shelter for years and have had many foster puppies and many, many dog friends. I currently live in a lower class racially mixed neighborhood and have seen quite a few Pits and Rottweilers come and go. When it comes to aggressive dogs, there is a direct correlation: the bigger the jerk the owner is, the nastier and more dangerous the dog.

It seems that when people want a badass dog for protection (or, worse, to show off how badass they are) they head for a Pit or a Rottie. Then rather than simply depend on the animal's natural instinct to protect his home and family they try to make him mean. This means hitting or beating him, aggressive play, yelling at him, jerking his chain (not metaphorically), feeding him gunpowder (!?) and worse. All the tough-guy macho training they lay on their dogs makes some of them psycho and when a child gets ripped up the owner has no clue that he is solely and directly responsible.

Owners should be criminally liable for the actions of their dogs. I have heard stories about a family pet turning on a child and people say it is such a tragedy, who knew, blah blah blah. They seem to think that punishing a parent after the loss of a child like that would be inhumane. Of course, if the owner had planted land mines in the yard to deter burgalrs and the child stepped on one, there would be little sympathy for his case. And that is exactly how the owner should be treated. If the animal hurts someone, then the owner should be tried for assault. An animal that kills means an owner tried for manslaughter.

Sorry for the rant - hit a sore spot with that one.

Roger

anniemcu · Post by **anniemcu** » Wed May 11, 2005 10:01 am

I am not a Pit-Bull fan by any means, and when you see what one can do to another dog or a child, the seriousness of the problem is clear... but... I don't see killing them all as the answer.

I have also met some delightful ones.

I agree - it is bad owners more than bad dogs... just as bad parenting can turn an otherwise innocent born child into a little monster, bad pet training can lead to viscious beasts that might otherwise have been good natured.

Redwolf · Post by **Redwolf** » Wed May 11, 2005 10:02 am

Random notes wrote:I've volunteered with a Humane Society shelter for years and have had many foster puppies and many, many dog friends. I currently live in a lower class racially mixed neighborhood and have seen quite a few Pits and Rottweilers come and go. When it comes to aggressive dogs, there is a direct correlation: the bigger the jerk the owner is, the nastier and more dangerous the dog.

It seems that when people want a badass dog for protection (or, worse, to show off how badass they are) they head for a Pit or a Rottie. Then rather than simply depend on the animal's natural instinct to protect his home and family they try to make him mean. This means hitting or beating him, aggressive play, yelling at him, jerking his chain (not metaphorically), feeding him gunpowder (!?) and worse. All the tough-guy macho training they lay on their dogs makes some of them psycho and when a child gets ripped up the owner has no clue that he is solely and directly responsible.

Owners should be criminally liable for the actions of their dogs. I have heard stories about a family pet turning on a child and people say it is such a tragedy, who knew, blah blah blah. They seem to think that punishing a parent after the loss of a child like that would be inhumane. Of course, if the owner had planted land mines in the yard to deter burgalrs and the child stepped on one, there would be little sympathy for his case. And that is exactly how the owner should be treated. If the animal hurts someone, then the owner should be tried for assault. An animal that kills means an owner tried for manslaughter.

Sorry for the rant - hit a sore spot with that one.

Roger

I agree with you 100%

My childhood dog was a pit bull. Sweetest dog you've ever met, and wonderful with children. But then, we treated him like a member of the family...we didn't try to train him to be a deadly weapon.

Not so very long ago, it was the doberman everyone was hysterical about. Now it's pits and rotties, and in a few years or so it will be another breed. And after all that, we never seem to learn that it's bad owners who make bad dogs.

Redwolf

Jennie · Post by **Jennie** » Wed May 11, 2005 10:06 am

When I lived in a village up north, I had sled dogs. One of them came to me already full grown. He had been teased and had lived on a short chain. He was okay as long as I got him plenty of exercise and spent time with him. But when I had to move, I put him down instead of passing him on to somebody else. I didn't trust a new owner to give him the kind of surveillance and attention he needed so that he wouldn't have a chance of hurting a kid.

A family I knew lost their son to a dog mauling.

Jennie

missy · Post by **missy** » Wed May 11, 2005 10:14 am

AARRGGGG!!!

Cincinnati has a "pit bull law". You can have them, but you must carry an additional $100,000 insurance, you must have them muzzled, chained, AND in a pen with a cover, and I forget what else.
Of course, there is the question of just what IS a "pit bull". This stupid law covers any dog from "1/4 pit bull" up. To someone, my (lousy specimen) boxer may have pit bull in him.
If a "pit bull" does wind up at the SPCA, it cannot be adopted out, it must be destroyed.

When the law was first passed, we found a wonderful stray female left in a nearby park. We wound up having to drive her 100 miles away to a no kill shelter (and of course, donated for her keep).

Pass any "dangerous" dog laws you want. Make sure the owners are responsible. But do NOT make these laws breed specific!!!

I'll shut up now!

Missy

Martin Milner · Post by **Martin Milner** » Wed May 11, 2005 10:34 am

Yup, it's the owners, not the dogs.

The only dog that ever bit me was a poodle. I still have a hole in my jeans to show for it.

My parents' dog is a Chihuahua, and aren't I gonna have fun looking after him for two weeks in August and walking him twice a day in the park. Still, less poop to scoop.

gonzo914 · Post by **gonzo914** » Wed May 11, 2005 10:38 am

Having lived next door to one, I don't have a problem with it. This thing was in a flimsy fence that was wholly inadequate to contain it, and the dog was routinely out and threatening my wife and kids. We were basically prisoners in the house -- my kids couldn't play in the front yard; my wife would not leave our fenced area; and I carried a handgun when I mowed. We complained to the city, to the management company and to the property owner with no relief. Then the dog died.

Here's a link to the legislative and judicial history of the Denver ordinance -- http://denvergov.org/admin/template3/fo ... %20Jud.doc . This is not a recent thing -- it goes back more than 10 years. And it's not like Denver announced on Monday it would start picking up dogs on Tuesday. Owners had plenty of notice to either move themselves or their dog, and if they got their dog confiscated, that's just too damn bad. I have no sympathy for them.

Cynth · Post by **Cynth** » Wed May 11, 2005 10:41 am

Be careful out there!

Random notes · Post by **Random notes** » Wed May 11, 2005 10:53 am

The first (and worst) dog bite I ever got was years ago. I was standing in shorts and sandals talking to my neighbor when her dog, a Yorkie, walked out, sniffed my foot, jumped straight up like he was spring loaded and bit me on the thigh. Then the little bugger dropped off, turned around and walked back home.

I can sympathize with Jennie. I have had to put down dogs that I could not keep and couldn't trust to pass on. The procedure at the HS shelter where I volunteered was to test each dog's temperament as part of determining adoptability. I don't believe any Pit passed while I was there. But individuals of plenty of other breeds failed too, like at least one Golden Retriever and some Lab mixes. Those are two breeds never associated with aggression, but between puppy mill breeders and owners who shouldn't be trusted with plush doggie dolls some animals were just dangerously unpredictable or aggressive.

I stopped volunteering out there because I just burned out. Just about everyone does sooner or later. After all, people volunteer because they love animals and then they have to deal with all the crap that people do to their "pets". And even if a volunteer is not directly involved in euthanasia just being around it grinds them down.

Roger

ChrisA · Post by **ChrisA** » Wed May 11, 2005 10:53 am

I think we should round up all the lawmakers in the city of Denver and have them put down.
They are clearly a menace to other living beings.