Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

My Crazy Idea - Lift the Ban and Add Regulations

Elizabeth Ann
April 4th, 2008, 01:17 PM
First I would like to say that I understand that really I have no power, and posting a crazy idea on a random website forum isn't going to change one darn thing.

But sometimes, just sometimes I think "What if one of my crazy ideas really made a difference". So instead of keeping this crazy idea in my head I thought I would share it with you.

I am sure it has many false and I am sure it could (and will be) picked apart, but whatever, I will take that chance.

I think that there shouldn’t be a ban at all, but if the government wants to keep control over these dogs they should be regulated like guns let say.

I think the regulations should start with the breeders. My bright idea would be to make a breeder go thru an interview processes and be required to supply a “business plan”. I think that there should be a one time fee of around $2,000 - $5,000 then they need re-new a license once a year at lest say $500.

Then I think anyone wanting to purchase a Pit would need to get permission. Again with an interview process. The potential owner would have to go as far supplying what vet they would use, how long they would be out of the house, how many children they have (with ages), supply information regarding any previous pets, a back ground check would need to be done to see if they have a criminal record. The new owners would also have to sign a contract stating they would get the dog spayed or neutered and promise to take it to at least level two of obedience.

After passing the purchaser would need to present a certificate to the breeder before the breeder can legally release the dog to its new owner.

Then the owner will need to have the dog “checked in” with the organization every year, again with a fee. If the dog is not accounted for there will be some sort of fine, or even a warrant of arrest for the owner.

This will make the purchaser think very harder if this breed is right for them.

Not only will this help control breeders and owners but it will help the dogs blood line. No breeder is going to pay money just for permission to breed crapy dogs.

So the whole point of this is hit people where they feel it the most, in their wallets. I think that this process should go thru either the SPCA or Human Society. All the funds would go to them. This will help stop backyard breeders and keep the costs of the dogs high. This will also help either the SPCA or the H/S raise some well needed funds.

I still think that the above is wrong, but it’s better then a total ban on the dogs that are deemed dangerous.

ancientgirl
April 4th, 2008, 01:42 PM
Certainly it would be better to at least have some kind of realistic regulations rather than ban the breed and or euthanize dogs just for being a certain breed!

I would like to think regulations would at the very least deter people who are only in it for abusive purposes to own a banned breed. Especially if it cost them time and money. I hate to make this comparison, but it's like owning a car. You aren't going to buy an expensive car and not take care of it and take it in to get the oil changed or put gas in it. So making someone pay and have to check in every so often to have their dog checked to make sure it's being treated well would not be a bad idea.

But this would only happen in a perfect world.:shrug:

SARAH
April 4th, 2008, 01:47 PM
Not sure if it's changed now, but France had installed a law that all dogs of certain breeds had to be muzzled when out on the open (public) streets, and certain had to be neutered/sterilized (pitts only). Did it help?

Not really, because the bad owners didn't give a sh**t and the others were worried that their pets would suffer in the summer because the panting was limited.

So some dogs wear them, most have them hanging under their chin ready to be whipped on if a cop is in sight :D

That's France for you :D make a law, and people will find a way to not-quite-comply.

The smoking law? Half the establishment smoker, half non-smoker? Well, a lot of the places had movable dividers and placed them according to how many customers they had of each category :D

Elizabeth Ann
April 4th, 2008, 02:09 PM
But this would only happen in a perfect world.:shrug:

In my world the sun is always out, the birds are always singing and I get to stay home with my :dog:s all day instead of going to work. ;) :)

CyberKitten
April 4th, 2008, 10:13 PM
Alas, we do not live in a perfect world. One can hope though. I suspect this would not occur if only because the political op[opportunists who created these laws saw a dog that was a problem - never thinking about the so called owner of the animal. The sad fact is I meet ppl every day who agree with these laws - especially people with small children - and they are scared of dogs. It is a rather common phobia (sadly) and these same parents are passing on said phobia to their children. So, regulations might work in stopping smoking- esp since even 2nd hand smoke can harm us- but with dogs or say exotic pets, it is quite another matter.

The problem also is that laws are made in so many different jurisdictions and in so many diffferent ways with a plethora of punitive measures, all against the dog! (and family of course)

Elizabeth Ann
April 4th, 2008, 10:42 PM
its funny how a child can walk into a school and blow the heads off of 10 other children and the first thing we say is "what kind of parents raised that child" But a dog...an animal with probably a quarter of the brain size of a child and relies so strongly on the proper guidence of their "parents"...attacks a child and we blame the breed.

ancientgirl
April 5th, 2008, 06:25 AM
its funny how a child can walk into a school and blow the heads off of 10 other children and the first thing we say is "what kind of parents raised that child" But a dog...an animal with probably a quarter of the brain size of a child and relies so strongly on the proper guidence of their "parents"...attacks a child and we blame the breed.

That's an excellent point.

I hate to say this, but I've always felt that when hearing about family dogs biting the small kids in the family, I've always first wondered, "What was the child doing to the dog?" I know a lot of people had large dogs and kids, but many of these people teach their children what to do and not to do to the dog.

Hey, I've been in homes with some 2 and 4 year olds, and quite frankly, if I could have gotten on my hands and knees and bitten them, I would have!

When I was about 7 I was visiting a friend who had a medium sized dog. When she left the room I went to pet the dog and it started growling at me and lunging. I freaked and ran to the kitchen, where the dog chased me. I was on the table crying when my friend came and held her dog back. I was traumatized for sure, but hey, it didn't stop me from petting a dog whenever I saw one. I realized that it was just that one dog that did that, not all dogs are the same. That's a lesson many of these legislators need to get in their dime sized brain. Not all dogs are vicious, and those that are, are like that for a reason, and 99% of the time, it's the owner.

Elizabeth Ann
April 5th, 2008, 07:41 AM
That's an excellent point.

I hate to say this, but I've always felt that when hearing about family dogs biting the small kids in the family, I've always first wondered, "What was the child doing to the dog?" I know a lot of people had large dogs and kids, but many of these people teach their children what to do and not to do to the dog.

Hey, I've been in homes with some 2 and 4 year olds, and quite frankly, if I could have gotten on my hands and knees and bitten them, I would have!

When I was about 7 I was visiting a friend who had a medium sized dog. When she left the room I went to pet the dog and it started growling at me and lunging. I freaked and ran to the kitchen, where the dog chased me. I was on the table crying when my friend came and held her dog back. I was traumatized for sure, but hey, it didn't stop me from petting a dog whenever I saw one. I realized that it was just that one dog that did that, not all dogs are the same. That's a lesson many of these legislators need to get in their dime sized brain. Not all dogs are vicious, and those that are, are like that for a reason, and 99% of the time, it's the owner.

I say 75% of it is the owner, and 24% of it is over/in-breeding.

You could take any breed of dog and breed it to become aggressive. The image of the dog is what is hurting it. The people that purchase these dogs (and pretty much in turn either give them up or get them taken away) are looking for that "Mocho - Mean" dog because they wouldn't be caught dead with a fluffy dog (this does not included every Pit owner).

That's one of the reasons why I think my idea would work. As I said a breeder is not going to breed aggressive un-homable dogs if they are paying $5,000 just for the pleasure.

On another forum that I am a member of a guy brought up the point where his "crazy, beer drinking, pot smoking, harley driving friend with a hot wife" (his words) had a pit that attached his friends daughter. As said as I am that a little girl was hurt I had some guestions.

And there where as follows;

mmmmm.... I don't like to stereo type but why did this guy pick the Pit Bull breed? I am sure it wasn't because of their reputation? No, that can't be it.

And I am sure he researched the dog and went to a reputable breeder right? A breeder that knew more about their dog’s blood line then their own family’s.

And I am sure he NEVER would even consider play fighting with the dog because he knew that it might invoke aggressive behavior. And I am also sure he took his dog to obedience classes as well.

I guess you are right - it was all the dogs fault.

Just a little back ground. I had a Mastif/Rottie X with one of my ex boyfriends. We adopted her when she was around 3 months old. We didn’t know her background or what type of house she came from so I took a lot of precautions because I AM a responsible dog owner.

I made sure that the first day we brought Harley home that the socializing began. We had a couple over (that also had dogs) and we made sure that they touched her and played with her and gave her treats. THEN we took her to puppy class, then we took her for walks around parks so she would get used to children. And I also made sure that my ex would NEVER EVER play fight with her.

When I was still living with my ex Harley was a perfect 75 lbs lap dog, but once I moved away and the training and socializing ended Harley is no longer the sweat dog she once was. I have heard stories of her biting and of people afraid to go to my ex’s house because of the dog.

My point is having a dog is a long term very involved job. You don’t just get a dog because it looks “tough”, that’s is why the Pits are where they are today. Because of “Mr. Tough Guy” wants a dog that will be mean looking sitting beside him while he polishes his Harley.

The Pit Bulls are so over/in bred that of course things will set them off.

pitgrrl
April 5th, 2008, 08:10 AM
That's one of the reasons why I think my idea would work. As I said a breeder is not going to breed aggressive un-homable dogs if they are paying $5,000 just for the pleasure.




The problem with making regulations for breeders (and owners for that matter) involving large sums of money is who will then be able to afford that? Chances are someone who breeds very infrequently, does not make money off it, spends large amounts of money and time on health testing, showing, working etc. their dogs are not going to be in a position to pay these types of annual fees.

Who is? Large scale, profit driven breeding operations, exactly the folks doing a lot of harm.

The same thing goes for owners. Those who can afford prohibitively high licensing fees are not necessarily one and the same as an appropriate owner.

I'm also not entirely keen on the idea of being treated much like I'm on probation because of the breed of dog I own. Is making a bunch of conditions, special licenses, fees and check ins for owners of specific breeds not still pointing to certain breeds and saying they are not like other dogs, and by extension, their owners essentially criminalized without having done anything?

If we agree that all dogs can bite, and all dog ownership is a longterm, involved commitment, negligence of which can create dangerous situations, then why single out certain breeds for anything at all?

Saradog
April 5th, 2008, 04:10 PM
Problem is, any "breeder" regulation doesn't differentiate between ethical breeders and backyard breeders/puppy millers.

The ethical breeders I know breed rarely, only to maintain and improve the breed, carefully question any prospective purchaser and will reject a purchaser if the person isn't right for their breed of dog.

The backyard breeders and puppy millers breed for profit, using the dogs like ATMs, without regard for the dogs' health and temperament. They will sell to anyone with cash or credit card in hand, no questions asked.

Breed is irrelevant. I've seen dogs of all kinds from both categories of breeders, including those overpriced mongrels like goldendoodles and the worst I've seen, bassadors.

It is vital that the ethical breeders step forward and speak to the public, educate on the difference.

Public education is vital to making people understand that it is not a dog's shape that determines its character and behaviour, but its owner's responsibility with respect to training, controlling and socializing the dog.

Ditto for educating the public to understand the difference between the categories of breeders.

And if we want to have a hope in hell of defeating Ontario's unfounded, unjust, vague and shoddy breed-specific legislation, we need to contribute financially to the legal challenge fund. Even if it's only five dollars, that five dollars helps.

www.bannedaid.com

Akira
April 14th, 2008, 02:43 PM
Elizabeth Ann, I agree with your idea because I also thought of the same type of thing. I think people COULD afford it. Some people will pay crazy amounts for dogs.

Pitgrrl you said

"Is making a bunch of conditions, special licenses, fees and check ins for owners of specific breeds not still pointing to certain breeds and saying they are not like other dogs"

I disagree with this. It is not the dog, its the certain type of people who want to own the specific breed of dog for bad reasons. These conditions are for the owners to make sure that they are NOT doing the bad things that some people do to these dogs. I honestly think, anything to remove this rediculous law of haveing them put down, would be better. How can it even be legal to kill something for the simple reason that they were born into this world a certain breed. Is that really, something that should be illegal? I'd like to take an 8 week old pitbull pup to a judge and ask them if they really think such a harmless creature, should die for the mere reason that we cannot control people, we cannot catch these people and put them in jail.

I think your idea is marvelous elizabeth ann.

Elizabeth Ann
April 14th, 2008, 03:09 PM
Problem is, any "breeder" regulation doesn't differentiate between ethical breeders and backyard breeders/puppy millers.

The ethical breeders I know breed rarely, only to maintain and improve the breed, carefully question any prospective purchaser and will reject a purchaser if the person isn't right for their breed of dog.

The backyard breeders and puppy millers breed for profit, using the dogs like ATMs, without regard for the dogs' health and temperament. They will sell to anyone with cash or credit card in hand, no questions asked.

Breed is irrelevant. I've seen dogs of all kinds from both categories of breeders, including those overpriced mongrels like goldendoodles and the worst I've seen, bassadors.

It is vital that the ethical breeders step forward and speak to the public, educate on the difference.

Public education is vital to making people understand that it is not a dog's shape that determines its character and behaviour, but its owner's responsibility with respect to training, controlling and socializing the dog.

Ditto for educating the public to understand the difference between the categories of breeders.

And if we want to have a hope in hell of defeating Ontario's unfounded, unjust, vague and shoddy breed-specific legislation, we need to contribute financially to the legal challenge fund. Even if it's only five dollars, that five dollars helps.

www.bannedaid.com

I think that if a large admin free & and high yearly fees would keep BYB away. The profit margin would be to low for them. I think breeders that are looking to better the breed would complain about it but if they really had the breeds best interest at heart they would suck it up and pay their money.

My theory is all about bettering the breed, starting with the breeder and then with the owner.

Elizabeth Ann
April 14th, 2008, 03:10 PM
Elizabeth Ann, I agree with your idea because I also thought of the same type of thing. I think people COULD afford it. Some people will pay crazy amounts for dogs.

Pitgrrl you said

"Is making a bunch of conditions, special licenses, fees and check ins for owners of specific breeds not still pointing to certain breeds and saying they are not like other dogs"

I disagree with this. It is not the dog, its the certain type of people who want to own the specific breed of dog for bad reasons. These conditions are for the owners to make sure that they are NOT doing the bad things that some people do to these dogs. I honestly think, anything to remove this rediculous law of haveing them put down, would be better. How can it even be legal to kill something for the simple reason that they were born into this world a certain breed. Is that really, something that should be illegal? I'd like to take an 8 week old pitbull pup to a judge and ask them if they really think such a harmless creature, should die for the mere reason that we cannot control people, we cannot catch these people and put them in jail.

I think your idea is marvelous elizabeth ann.

Thanks, I think it's a good idea as well. To bad it will most likely never go anywhere. It was just my thoughts and I don't think my one little voice will ever make a difference.