Ban stupid owners!

Discuss Breed Specific Legislation and local county laws on pit bull ownership.
BSLYES
Newborn Bully
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:26 pm
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Ban stupid owners!

Postby BSLYES » Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:22 pm

I hear this battle cry quite a bit from Bully breed owners. What, however, would banning stupid owners entail?

User avatar
mroman
Super Bully
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:11 am
Location: Paw Paw, MI

Postby mroman » Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:39 pm

Personally, I think the phrase is more meant to place the focus on the other end of the leash. The epidemiology of dog bites is something that points squarely at the behavior of the owner more than the dog. In effect, effective animal control laws need to be focused on both the punishment of the irresponsible owner and promotion of responsible owner behavior. Like many public policy phrases, it is short and quick and points the listener to the real source of the problem. But it is not a realistic scenario.

That being said, actual "banning stupid owners" could realistically apply to removing animal ownership rights from those owners who have proven themselves poor at it. Some point to convicted felons as a group that could be effectively banned from ownership. But we also have to realistically recognize the "bans" of any kind are less than perfect in their implementation. Otherwise it would be easy to ban stupid drivers, gun owners, parents, and so on. All too often I believe our society seeks to pass all encompassing laws like bans as some sort of magical fix. We think it works because it has the word "ban" in it. But reality paints a different picture no matter the issue or law.

So the answer is not in the rhetoric of the phrase "Ban stupid owners." The answer is what is hinted at in the phrase. Legislating to both promote and punish as a means of building responsible animal ownership in a community. There exists throughout the planet effective animal control legislation, and more importantly enforcement, that produces real reductions in dog bite incidents as well as more responsible ownership. And I truly wish that when law making bodies hear the phrase is that they nod their collective heads, realize the answer is in holding owners accountable, and do a little research to find out who has had success and how they did it, and then craft a similar law designed for their particular community.

Mark

User avatar
AriesGodofWar
Super Bully
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Arnold, Missouri
Contact:

Postby AriesGodofWar » Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:24 pm

:bowdown: :goodpost:

User avatar
PitbullLover*
Super Bully
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:56 am

Postby PitbullLover* » Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:06 am

more than good posting wow! :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

User avatar
MikeInTacoma
Moderator
Posts: 3421
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:27 am
Location: Tacoma, WA, USA
Contact:

Postby MikeInTacoma » Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:49 am

I like this analysis from Canada:
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Pets/PitBullProfiling.htm

The strongest connection of all, though, is between the trait of dog viciousness and certain kinds of dog owners. In about a quarter of fatal dog-bite cases, the dog owners were previously involved in illegal fighting. The dogs that bite people are, in many cases, socially isolated because their owners are socially isolated, and they are vicious because they have owners who want a vicious dog. The junk-yard German shepherd—which looks as if it would rip your throat out—and the German-shepherd guide dog are the same breed. But they are not the same dog, because they have owners with different intentions....

It was a textbook dog-biting case: unneutered, ill-trained, charged-up dogs, with a history of aggression and an irresponsible owner, somehow get loose, and set upon a small child. The dogs had already passed through the animal bureaucracy of Ottawa, and the city could easily have prevented the second attack with the right kind of generalization—a generalization based not on breed but on the known and meaningful connection between dangerous dogs and negligent owners....


In general, the best predictor of future behavior is previous behavior. I feel sure that, generally, people whose dogs become a serious problem, first have an escalating series of less serious problems. If problem owners were tracked the way problem drivers are tracked, then their dogs could be rehomed before the problems got too serious. Of course, that would mean we have to say that not just anyone can own a dog; but I think most of us would say that. Some people shouldn't own dogs, and they usually have the track record to prove it.

We require drivers education and a written and practical exam before we let people behind the wheel. It'd be a royal pain in the a** to do the same for dog owners, but to me it seems to make sense.

BSLYES
Newborn Bully
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:26 pm
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Postby BSLYES » Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:03 am

Mark, thanks for the reply!


Return to “Laws”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests