Denver Colorado Pit Bull ban!

[JESSE G]

In may Denver Colorado made it illegal to own a Pit Bull in the city limits. There have been many attacks and severe injurys and a couple deaths. I just dont understand how they can say all of them are bad and should be banned. If anyone caught with a pit bull in the city limits will have there dog taken to the pound and if they can afford to get them out and prove they will have a new home out of Denver they are put down. This to me is just plain crazy! They have already killed over 260 since may!!!! anyway I just wanted to see what your guys take was on this. Here is artical on it check it out. There has to be a better way of doing this, I really dought all of these dogs are vicious killers, It all on how they are brought up. I mean man I was attacked by a poodle once lol so should we take out all of them little rat dogs wtf! I better hope that no one is attacked by a Beagle, they might come after my dog to kill him, who will piss himself if he gets scared and wouldnt hurt a fly!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050720-102538-4491r.htm

 

[nitrost]

to me that is bullshit I'm sick of these stupid laws when there is more important crap that they could care less about. another thing they do more about a dog biting someone than when a adult goes out and kills a little kid. if it was me id say no trial and give them a death sentence

 

[JESSE G]

Yeah no kidding!!

 

[cvec7]

That is very fiddlesticking retarded! Now, I will admit that pit bulls are probably some of the meanest dogs, but a lot aren't. I had a friend who had one, and it was as calm and nice as can be. And, hell, German Shepards can be pretty mean as well, especially the ones in Germany! Lol.

Hey, Jesse, do you live in Denver? Or, just in Colorado?

 

[RatzoRC]

I've had pit bulls.
I had two at once.
One was very protective and would attack if provoked. (he was constantly tormented by the neighborhood kids while he was in the front yard)
The other was more layed back, but would also protect the home, just not as nasty.
They were very smart, and well trained.
They would never hurt any of us in the house. The crazy one would sleep at the foot of my bed, and the other would sleep next to the bed.
They were the best dogs, friends, and companions.
It's a poopy law.
What happens if you've had the dog before the law change?
Are you supposed to get rid of a family member (the dog), that may have lived with you for years?

 

[ImBroken]

Personally, I dont like Pitbulls at all.. As a tradesman, I wont enter a house unless the Pit is outside.. They look down right vicious, and I dont trust em.. That's just me..

But... Here are some interesting facts on the Pitbull Terrier..
http://members.aol.com/bstofshw/facts.html

 

[HeartBreak]

Personally, I'll never own a pit (I had to babysit my sisters' pit that she had for a week. Darned thing, at 10 weeks old, was going for my dogs' neck. She eventually returned it to the breeder - a reaction I don't agree with, but at least it wasn't put down).

But, if another person wants to own them, that's fine. I think that the law makers have the right intentions (to prevent the dogs from being turned into attackers or fighters), but they're going about it bass-ackards (par for the course, for lawmakers. Imminent Domain ruling by the Supreme Court... Nuff said). What they need to do is issue licenses for the owners of pits.

It's kind of the same thought behind driving a car; the car can be a lethal weapon, same as the dog can be. The difference is in the owner, and the owners' intent. Licensing the owner(s) is a simple way to control who gets one, and who doesn't.

How they could go about it in a fair and just way, is to run a background check, much like the Brady Law (for guns/firearms). Check for instances of violence, animal cruelty, and the like.

This way, the good owners have their dogs, and the government gets their take (in licensing the owner). Not to mention, irresponsible owners (fighters, etc) get weeded out in the process.

Okay, that's my weekly brainfart, lol. It's a bit long winded, but that's how I feel on the whole dangerous breed debate.

 

[MAD-MAXX]

Are you supposed to get rid of a family member (the dog), that may have lived with you for years?

i dont know but if you do thats stupid. pit bulls are like the best dogs along with healers and rotwielers (my opinion). i used to have one and she was so cool very playful, nice to ppl she knew, but very protective but thats why ppl get pit bulls. i think it should be your decison, if you train your dog right then they should be good. n e dog can bite. they attack ppl prolly because they feel threatened. poor dogs! good thing i dont live in denver...

theyre just doing their jobs.

 

[Nevaren]

I disagree with the legislation.
A Pitt raised by a responsible owner as a pet is probly a normal adjusted dog.
HOWEVER...
Problem 1.
Pitts are favorites for the illegal fight circuits. they are bred in less than favorable conditions and raised in worse. that particular group of owners promotes savage vicious dogs. and encourages it in their bloodlines.

Problem 2.
The way that Pitt bulls that are agressive and do attack people attack and kill is quite savage and a terrifying way to be killed.
That promotes sensationalism by our esteemed media.
That sensationalizm creates mass hysteria and public outrage.

It is in this environment of un-informed mass panic that violations of personal rights such as the pitt bull ban are allowed to get thru our legislative systems.

The correct action is to actively prosecute those breeders that breed fight dogs and those people that promote, participate in, and attend the illegal dog fights.

That's my opinion on the subject.
flame on.

 

[Loser]

i agree with heartbreak there should be some kind of a background check not a complete boycott of the species...think about it its like racism but on a lower level, if someone told me i wasn't able to own my pet ball python because they were "dangerous" i would be very upset and probably figure out some way that i could keep it maybe illegally if need be.

my 2 cents

 

[kwong2001]

One key phrase "if the owner properly traines...." If a dog has a natural tendency to be agressive, and it HAS to be trained, then it's probably a dangerous dog. Most dog owners have no idea how to train their dog...think about it.

 

[Tarant]

Thats Crap, One of my friends had 3 Pit Bulls, They wernt traind like police dogs but they had obidience training, they were very similar to yours RatzoRC, 2 of then were very laid back nice calm dogs unless you tried to break into their house then you were screwd, any way the third one was wound a bit tighter, but still a nice dog I had pet him and played with him,
But these 2 neighborhood kids were teasing him and throwing rocks at him while he was in the front yard, the dog jumped the fence and bite one of the kids, teh cops ended up shooting the dog.
And the owners my freind was put at falt.

Yeah people need to train their dogs but people NEED to tell their kids that you piss off the wrong dog he will not take it.

 

[cvec7]

wholy poop! Why'd the cops have to shoot the dog!? Was it threatening the cops or anyone else's life? If so, then I kind of understand. But if they just came after it had all happened and the dog had calmed down and been restrained, I would've sued the county, or would've wound up on another episode of COPS....

 

[HeartBreak]

Yeah people need to train their dogs but people NEED to tell their kids that you piss off the wrong dog he will not take it.

Definately agreed; Another idea that came to me after hitting the 'post' button is a "bite liability" insurance.

At least with the idea that I've posted, everyone wins... The federales' get their cut (by way of the licensing), the insurance people get their cut (by way of a 'bite' insurance, approved after behavoural/owner assessment), and the owners get their dogs.

However, I think the most important thing, just as with dangerous substances, that 'beware of dog' signs be posted. That should go for any dog owner that has a potentially dangerous dog, be it a rott, a pit, or a chihuahua.

Then again, there's some people that shouldn't own dogs of any kind; look at that one crazy woman video "he bite my labradors *ahem*"... Give 'em a hamster or somethin small. Or, let them have their dogs, so long as they move to BFE.

Personally, I have a queensland heeler/corgi mix... She's only about 2.5 years old, and is the most friendly dog I've seen. However, her attempts at play could be seen as attempts at attacking (to the wrong person)... But, she won't hurt a fly; maybe eat the little pest, but never hurt it. I make every effort possible to make sure she has no access to other people without being on a leash at almost all times, whenever she's out of the chain-link fenced yard.

You think Colorados' nuts; the cops around here would shoot a dog if it passed wind in their presence. Roscoe P. Coltrain wannabes, lol.

 

[ZANDOR]

wholy poop! Why'd the cops have to shoot the dog! ....

Lets see here.......
The fucken dog jumped a fence and bit a child.
What part of that don't you under stand...

 

[cvec7]

What part of "the kids where throwing rocks at the dog" did you not understand? And, did you see somewhere in his post that he said the dog was killing anyone?

 

[ZANDOR]

So Is Its all right for a dog to bite a child...
Do you have kids???
If the dog has a temperment like that...You had better lock it up... OR call me I would not think twice about putting a bullet in it for ya!

 

[cvec7]

So Is Its all right for a dog to bite a child...
Do you have kids???
If the dog has a temperment like that...You had better lock it up... OR call me I would not think twice about putting a bullet in it for ya!

No, I am not saying at all that it is alright for a dog to bite a child. I am just saying that I think the cops choice of action was a little severe. And, after something like that does happen, damn right the dog would be locked up....provided that the owners were not legally mentally retarded. In which case, they probably wouldn't own a dog(not a pit-bull, just ANY pet) Yes, yes I could understand yours, or anyone's frustration if one of their kids got bit by a dog. All I'm saying is that I think that the police's choice was a little harsh IMO.

 

[nitrost]

if the dog has temper then yes put a bullet in its head but the i see is if the dog was being abused by rock it was defending it self yes it was a kid but the way is see is they should have to pay a fined. i know if someone shot my dog i would be raising hell.

 

[cvec7]

.... i know if someone shot my dog i would be raising hell.

EXACTLY! Especially if it were under the circumstances that it didn't kill anyone or severly injure someone, like in the instance w/ the kids and the rocks.