About the grandfathering in of Pit Bulls. Pit Bull ordinance of Denver.
www.dogsbite.org/pdf/denver-pitbull-ordinance-history…
The start of the document does mention grandfathering in, but read down to page 12, section E, they gave the dog owners 30 days to remove the dogs from Denver.
Yeah, that was in 2005 after Denver won a suit allowing them to continue the ban, NOT back in 1998 when the ban was initiated and existing Pits were grandfathered in. Again, again, again, when the ban was initiated, existing Pit Bulls were grandfathered and allowed to live within city limits. Facts, not fear mongering. Please.
Well, I suppose I wasn’t following this closely back then and didn’t live there at the time. I do remember the no-kills having to clear out pit bulls that they had, by sending them to shelters outside of Denver and Aurora if they could find a place. There seemed to be a lot of chaos, but I really don’t know the details - but the idea (apparently erroneous) was that people had to get rid of their dogs. I don’t know that to be true, just that it was what people were saying. I don’t remember having read the ordinances.
The link above doesn’t open properly for me.
What’s the difference? They might have grandfathered them in at first, but then they gave them 30 days to get them out of town. A lot of innocent dogs lost their homes. A lot of responsible owners lost their companions. Breed specific legislation is not right. Stronger laws, for all dogs, make more sense. S/N, tethering, breeding licesences, as long as those laws would be enforced. Right now I see BSL as nothing more than discrimination. Stronger, enforceable laws without specific breeds.
Where am I fear mongering? In 2005 Pit Bull owners in Denver were given 30 days to get rid of their dogs. I didn’t say they went door to door and pulled the dogs away, I didn’t say they had to euth their pets, I gave a fact.
I’m sorry that you hate Pits so much. I don’t like Chows, can’t read them and have had bad experiences with them. But I would be fighting BSL if it were the Chow that was the target breed. I’m for stronger dog laws, in cities and rural areas, just not specific target breeds.
[QUOTE=scierra;7506337]
A lot of responsible owners lost their companions. Breed specific legislation is not right. Stronger laws, for all dogs, make more sense. S/N, tethering, breeding licesences, as long as those laws would be enforced. Right now I see BSL as nothing more than discrimination. Stronger, enforceable laws without specific breeds.[/QUOTE]
BSL doesn’t have to mean banning dogs. If we could move past that, we probably would find that those you believe “hate pit bulls” and those that others consider “pit bull advocates” actually agree on a lot of things.
Unfortunately, I think the days of “laws without specific breeds” are gone. “Pit bull” breeders have done irreparable harm to the breed, and owners will suffer the consequences from here on out.
But, I think that most “pit bull” and “bully type” owners are not breeders, and probably could agree to things like restricted breeding and substantially higher license fees for unaltered dogs. BSL could actually help the proponents of the breed(s) by making it harder to breed puppies for fighting and/or indiscriminately for drug money, or just for no reason.
And, for what it’s worth, I think Chows should be on the BSL list as well (among other breeds). But again - if someone owns an altered Chow, and is not breeding it and selling puppies for fighting, guarding or attack…they are far less of a danger to the public.
[QUOTE=Coyoteco;7506328]
Well, I suppose I wasn’t following this closely back then and didn’t live there at the time. I do remember the no-kills having to clear out pit bulls that they had, by sending them to shelters outside of Denver and Aurora if they could find a place. There seemed to be a lot of chaos, but I really don’t know the details - but the idea (apparently erroneous) was that people had to get rid of their dogs. I don’t know that to be true, just that it was what people were saying. I don’t remember having read the ordinances.
The link above doesn’t open properly for me.[/QUOTE]
Here try this:
http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/denver-pitbull-ordinance-history-judicial-rulings.pdf
Page 12, section E. pertains to “Resumption of Enforcement Actions”. Denver had to lift the ban for a short time in 2005 and then resumed. This section only pertains to that.
The Pit extremists want us all to believe that people went door to door swiping dogs and killing them on the spot and this will happen to you, too, unless you fight tooth and nail against Breed Specific Legislation. It’s just not true.
Pit Bull owners were required, beginning in 1998, to carry liability insurance on their dogs, muzzle them in public, contain the dogs behind specified fencing and label said fence as containing a Pit Bull. As long as PB owners abided by the law as it was written, their dogs remained with them. If they chose to ignore the law, they would be notified and warned and if they continued to fail to comply, their dogs would have been seized. Pit Bulls seized in Denver around the time this law went into effect belonged to owners who did not comply with the law in one way or another. It’s sad for the dogs when owners think they don’t have to play by the rules. And it’s sad when Pit Bull advocates use half truths and fear mongering to promote their agendas.
[QUOTE=scierra;7506337]
What’s the difference? They might have grandfathered them in at first, but then they gave them 30 days to get them out of town. A lot of innocent dogs lost their homes. A lot of responsible owners lost their companions. Breed specific legislation is not right. Stronger laws, for all dogs, make more sense. S/N, tethering, breeding licesences, as long as those laws would be enforced. Right now I see BSL as nothing more than discrimination. Stronger, enforceable laws without specific breeds.
You’re not understanding. Or you’re trying to confuse the issue. In 1998, when the ban went into effect, there were specific laws with which Pit Bull owners in Denver had to comply (see my previous post). As long as they did so, they kept their dogs. In 2005, the ban was not enforced for a very short time period (less than 6 months) and then reinstated. During this time, it was expected to be reinstated in the near future. On April 8, 2005 it was announced that Denver Animal Control would resume enforcement of the breed ban. It was then that the 30 day period came into effect. The ban had never been officially lifted and it’s constitutionality was under question during the few months when it was not being enforced.
Where am I fear mongering? In 2005 Pit Bull owners in Denver were given 30 days to get rid of their dogs. I didn’t say they went door to door and pulled the dogs away, I didn’t say they had to euth their pets, I gave a fact.
In 2005, Pit owners in Denver were breaking the law. The law never changed. The ban wasn’t lifted (I thought earlier that it was. I was wrong. It wasn’t.). It just wasn’t actively enforced for less than 6 months. Knowing this, it was pretty generous of the City of Denver to give a 30 day notice before beginning to actively enforce the ordinance again. THIS is an example of fear mongering, since you asked. Using half truths and actual lies to make something seem much more frightening and threatening than it really is. Fear mongering. “In 2005, Pit Bull owners in Denver were given 30 days to get rid of their dogs.” Um, no. In 2005, owning a Pit Bull in Denver was AGAINST THE LAW. And the populace was given notice in April that the ACO’s would be paying attention again. That’s all. And if you did have a Pit Bull in Denver, you didn’t have to get rid of it to stop breaking the law. You could move. Maybe not ideal, but you’re the idiot who brought an illegal dog into city limits and, surprise, the law does apply to you.
I’m sorry that you hate Pits so much. I don’t like Chows, can’t read them and have had bad experiences with them. But I would be fighting BSL if it were the Chow that was the target breed. I’m for stronger dog laws, in cities and rural areas, just not specific target breeds.[/QUOTE]
I don’t hate Pit Bulls at all. I don’t hate or even dislike any breed of dog. If the number of Pit Bull associated DBRF and maulings continues to rise, BSL is inevitable. I think it’s time to fight for fair BSL and to be HONEST with ourselves and each other. Before the laws are made by those who don’t give a shit about dogs or dog people.
[QUOTE=JackieBlue;7506427]
I don’t hate Pit Bulls at all. I don’t hate or even dislike any breed of dog. If the number of Pit Bull associated DBRF and maulings continues to rise, BSL is inevitable. I think it’s time to fight for fair BSL and to be HONEST with ourselves and each other. Before the laws are made by those who don’t give a shit about dogs or dog people.[/QUOTE]
JackieBlue–anyone who quotes dogsbite.org as much as you do obviously hates pit bulls. The site is for pit bull detractors. And I certainly hope NONE of your clients include pit bulls since you obviously do not have an interest in protecting them.
[QUOTE=chancellor2;7506552]
JackieBlue–anyone who quotes dogsbite.org as much as you do obviously hates pit bulls. The site is for pit bull detractors. And I certainly hope NONE of your clients include pit bulls since you obviously do not have an interest in protecting them.[/QUOTE]
What’s your solution, then? Other than expecting the public to not care about dangerous dogs?
The problem with BSLs is who is going to determine the breed of the dog? For example, I do have a bully mix 95 lbs, but he also looks like a Rhodesian ridge back except for the back hair. We do not really know what he is, he came from a high kill shelter. I have also known of a litter of pups, mom was a pit bull type mix, pups came out looking like Huskys, none looked like bullies at all, yet they were at least half bully mixes. No one would know what they were based on their looks. At least where I am at there are so many just mutts, because people around here do not spay and neuter. I would much rather have stronger spay neuter laws than BSLs.
Not that I have to worry where I live and BSLs, heck we do not even have a shelter or a real AC, county just works with a rescue when they have money to pay rescue to take the stray dogs.
Dog fighting is a federal offense, for those of you wanting dog fighting eradicated. It is now a federal offense to watch a dog fight. There have been very large rings raided in the last several years here in the south and of course Michael Vick (good read, story on the Vick’s dog, all but 3-4 were deemed safe to adopt out temperament wise! they just did not because of who they were in most instances), I agree even more needs to be done, that is where private citizens can help. Call it in to AC/police if you suspect dog fighting. It can be a real problem here in the south.
I am reading about a dog Bandit who was ordered to be euthanized in the 80’s for being a vicious “pit bull”, he according to the author was just a mutt with maybe bulldog in him and was not vicious at all. He bit twice, once when his owner was being attacked and once when his owner was beating him. She ended up adopting him after being brought in as dog expert for defense team fighting euthanization order. Yet the news people kept referring to the dog as a pit bull, so did the AC/prosecutors. Calling him a pit bull sold newspapers and made better news than saying he was just a mutt.
[QUOTE=S1969;7506379]
BSL doesn’t have to mean banning dogs. If we could move past that, we probably would find that those you believe “hate pit bulls” and those that others consider “pit bull advocates” actually agree on a lot of things.
Unfortunately, I think the days of “laws without specific breeds” are gone. “Pit bull” breeders have done irreparable harm to the breed, and owners will suffer the consequences from here on out.
But, I think that most “pit bull” and “bully type” owners are not breeders, and probably could agree to things like restricted breeding and substantially higher license fees for unaltered dogs. BSL could actually help the proponents of the breed(s) by making it harder to breed puppies for fighting and/or indiscriminately for drug money, or just for no reason.
And, for what it’s worth, I think Chows should be on the BSL list as well (among other breeds). But again - if someone owns an altered Chow, and is not breeding it and selling puppies for fighting, guarding or attack…they are far less of a danger to the public.[/QUOTE]
The tide is changing slowly concerning dog laws. States, cities, etc. are taking out the breed specific in their dangerous dog ordinances. I can’t remember what states are working on eliminating BSL, I do know Utah is one and at least one or more on the East coast I believe. I won’t speculate and mention any I don’t know as a fact to keep from fear mongering or posting half truths as we Pit Bull advocates are accused of doing. (Yes that’s sarcasm).
I live close to South Bend, Indiana, they have just taken breed specific out of their dog ordinance, it’s now a dangerous dog law. That is an example of the laws dropping the BSL that’s a fact.
Re- repealing BSLs: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/07/breed-specific-legislation_n_4738583.html
Good campaign on helping to end dog fighting:
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/dogfighting/end_dogfighting.html
What a local rescue here is doing, going in to low income areas, helping get the animals vetted including altering the animals (cats and dogs), passing out food, shelter for the pets, EDUCATION, and re-homing when asked. It is about a helping hand rather than more laws, education rather than arrest/fines.
[QUOTE=S1969;7506573]
What’s your solution, then? Other than expecting the public to not care about dangerous dogs?[/QUOTE]
I have given my solution which you obviously didn’t bother to read.
Making existing laws have more “bite” to them (pun intended). Better support for ACOs for dogs found roaming including neutering loose intact dogs. If you have an intact dog and it is roaming, I don’t care if it is a first offense, the dog needs to be fixed.
Punish the deed not the breed. If your dog is vicious then you must fence your yard or lose your dog. THIS kind of legislation will punish the bad owners and not the good ones. There must be better ways to enforce existing laws without enacting knee jerk, ban the entire breed. Once one breed is eradicated, the bad guys will just move onto another breed.
Whether you want to believe it or not, this IS a form of racism. It didn’t work in the South, it won’t work now. Learn from that example. Don’t repeat the same mistakes expecting different results. That IS one definition of insanity, right?
scierra, Massachusetts just repealed their bsl. And Obama made a statement himself about BSL and how it doesn’t work. I’m no Obama fan but I did like that statement.
[QUOTE=chancellor2;7506660]
I have given my solution which you obviously didn’t bother to read.
Making existing laws have more “bite” to them (pun intended). Better support for ACOs for dogs found roaming including neutering loose intact dogs. If you have an intact dog and it is roaming, I don’t care if it is a first offense, the dog needs to be fixed.
Punish the deed not the breed. If your dog is vicious then you must fence your yard or lose your dog. THIS kind of legislation will punish the bad owners and not the good ones. There must be better ways to enforce existing laws without enacting knee jerk, ban the entire breed. Once one breed is eradicated, the bad guys will just move onto another breed. [/QUOTE]
Honestly, you are so nasty. :rolleyes: Forgive me for not wading back through pages of responses to recall your exact solution.
“Punish the deed”…so how does that prevent anything? The dog that mauled the 2 year old in Houston yesterday was not roaming. It was inside its own house. If your dog is vicious you must fence your yard? Seriously? How will someone determine which ones are vicious until after they hurt someone? If they ARE vicious they should be put down.
I have no objection to neutering loose dogs after a certain number of days if not picked up, but would be pretty pissed if my dog got loose and was neutered before I could pay a fine and prove his breeding quality.
And, for the last time, very few people are suggesting a ban.
Personally, I don’t know why pit proponents don’t support a ban/or to regulate breeding and selling puppies. If your dog is on “the list”…you must have a permit to breed it. Period. Why would anyone who loves the breed object to this? It’s just like a license, and people won’t all comply, but if caught, they have now committed a crime and can be prosecuted.
[QUOTE=chancellor2;7506552]
JackieBlue–anyone who quotes dogsbite.org as much as you do obviously hates pit bulls. The site is for pit bull detractors. And I certainly hope NONE of your clients include pit bulls since you obviously do not have an interest in protecting them.[/QUOTE]
First, I’ve quoted all kinds of sites. Second, dogsbite.org is a dog bite victim’s support and education site. Seriously, this is getting like hating on a rape victim’s support group for sharing stats. The site is not “for Pit Bull detractors”. It’s for anyone who wants to find the non–nanny dog stories and statistics.
And please, stop telling me what I hate. I don’t. hate. Pit. Bulls. I am, however, capable of understanding them fully and I don’t need to lie to myself about stats to feel okay. And yes, a majority of my clients are Pits. What did I say my specialty was? Whether or not that makes you happy is irrelevant. But it IS why I have such strong feelings on some subjects. I have a LOT of experience with good and not so good ones.
You may find this odd, but I can be honest with myself about what a Pit Bull is and what it’s capable of, without either hating it or wanting to “protect it” as if it were a tiny kitten.
s1969- so you don’t have to weed through posts THIS is why I don’t support a ban or regulations of breeding.
IT WILL PUNISH THE GOOD BREEDERS AND NOT THE BAD ONES. Do you really seriously believe that the thugs who are breeding them for dog fighting are going to say “Oh, I need to go out and get a license to breed these dogs”?
The people who are breeding the bad dogs are probably ALREADY committing a crime. They CAN be prosecuted NOW…but no one has the time, money or energy to go after them.
[QUOTE=JackieBlue;7506699]
First, I’ve quoted all kinds of sites. Second, dogsbite.org is a dog bite victim’s support and education site. Seriously, this is getting like hating on a rape victim’s support group for sharing stats. The site is not “for Pit Bull detractors”. It’s for anyone who wants to find the non–nanny dog stories and statistics.
And please, stop telling me what I hate. I don’t. hate. Pit. Bulls. I am, however, capable of understanding them fully and I don’t need to lie to myself about stats to feel okay. And yes, a majority of my clients are Pits. What did I say my specialty was? Whether or not that makes you happy is irrelevant. But it IS why I have such strong feelings on some subjects. I have a LOT of experience with good and not so good ones.
You may find this odd, but I can be honest with myself about what a Pit Bull is and what it’s capable of, without either hating it or wanting to “protect it” as if it were a tiny kitten.[/QUOTE]
If a majority of your clients are pit bulls, I feel very bad for them.
[QUOTE=chancellor2;7506704]
s1969- so you don’t have to weed through posts THIS is why I don’t support a ban or regulations of breeding.
IT WILL PUNISH THE GOOD BREEDERS AND NOT THE BAD ONES. Do you really seriously believe that the thugs who are breeding them for dog fighting are going to say “Oh, I need to go out and get a license to breed these dogs”?
The people who are breeding the bad dogs are probably ALREADY committing a crime. They CAN be prosecuted NOW…but no one has the time, money or energy to go after them.[/QUOTE]
The Good breeders will understand the need for this. Let THEM worry about it.
[QUOTE=chancellor2;7506706]
If a majority of your clients are pit bulls, I feel very bad for them.[/QUOTE]
I know you do. Now grow up and find a new argument. “You just hate Pit Bulls” is always the last ditch BS thrown out by the nuts who can’t face reality and reason. It’s just silly.
