Quote:

Petsmart and Petco IMO should be limited to training dogs to the levels of the expertise of their trainers..

In other words, they shouldn't be training dogs in the first place? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I keed, I keed!

I'd say pit bull ownership should be restricted to those only who do serious OB/working sports with them, and they must take proof of doing these to the govt at regular intervals to prove they are serious about owning pits. Beforehand, a prospective pit owner should apprentice under another for a period of time and approved for ownership before that person can even get their hands on a pit. Boy it's sounding an awful lot like falconry and Big Govt there. Never going to happen, but I'd say that's one way to restrict ownership to those who truly love the breed. Always going to have illegal ownership, though. Sadly, I as well think the breed is rapidly sliding past the point of no return. I hate to think which breed would be next. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

I thought there were current age restrictions in some cities already? I'm thinking I saw an episode of Animal Cops: Detroit where the HSUS officer confiscated a group of pit bulldogs because they were owned by children under the city's required age.

 Quote:

Petsmart and Petco IMO should be limited to training dogs to the levels of the expertise of their trainers..

I think the dog groomers in the back probably know more about training and handling than the cutie pie trainer up front <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

 Quote:

I'd say pit bull ownership should be restricted to those only who do serious OB/working sports with them, and they must take proof of doing these to the govt at regular intervals to prove they are serious about owning pits. Beforehand, a prospective pit owner should apprentice under another for a period of time and approved for ownership before that person can even get their hands on a pit. Boy it's sounding an awful lot like falconry and Big Govt there. Never going to happen, but I'd say that's one way to restrict ownership to those who truly love the breed. Always going to have illegal ownership, though. Sadly, I as well think the breed is rapidly sliding past the point of no return. I hate to think which breed would be next. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

I think that solution is a little too extreme, even for pit bulldogs.

There is no easy answer to this dilema. We have to promote responsible ownership and widescale breed education throughout the country before things change. Pit bulldog people have got stop propagating the myth that dogfighting is the only thing the breed was intended for, and that it is the limit of the dogs use. We have to reverse the trend of opinion in our own community that dog aggression equals man aggression(you'd be suprized how many pit bulldog people believe "fighting" dogs make GREAT guard/attack dogs).

Regardless of anything else, I think the most important step we can take in restoring the breed is to eliminate the prevalence of breeders in this community. It seems like every other owner is also a backyard breeder. The community is already so over-populated that we're beginning to lose touch with identifiable traits(size, temperaments, abilities) within known bloodlines. Unfortunately, I don't know how we're supposed to accomplish this, because breeding provides a relatively easy source of income for these people, and they're unlikely to willingly stop breeding based on moral/ethical grounds.

Andy.

 Quote:

Maybe a new law...
At the first sign of aggression, an investigator attempts to get 3 or more eye witnesses to verify the aggression. If witnesses are in agreement, the owner is heavily fined ($1500 maybe?) and put on notice... if this dog attacks somebody, you're going to jail as if you shot someone. At this point, the dog owner is given the option to reduce the fine (maybe save $500) if they attend a comprehensive "aggressive dog" class that requires the owner to pass a test proving that they have learned how to appropriately handle an aggressive dog (muzzle, prong, crate, etc.)

This is just a "concept" for a law that might help accomplish the obvious goal, without discriminating against any specific breed. Does this go too far? Maybe a "second chance" if the first sign of aggression does not include an actual bite. Thoughts? Suggestions?

Nobody had any thoughts about this? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Maybe if enough dog people put their heads together, BSL will no longer be an issue because the problem can be solved once and for all instead of waiting for a government mandated band-aid solution.

Ryan -

It is not a bad method...because it targets the right problem, irresponsible people. I have scripted several methods like this and fought my local gov't to adopt. They finally settled on a strike three....first indiscresion your dog is labeled an aggresive dog (with it comes financial penalties and various notifications..like home owners), second depending on the seriousness of the incident the dog may be considered for destruction, third the dog is put down and the owner faces charges. This is only a local solution, but it seems to have quelled further gov't interference and it applies to all dogs and owners. BTW if the first incident results in injury to a human or a pet...you skip to three.

But the main point is for all of us that love dogs to understand destroying a breed of dog or many breeds of dogs will not stop people from being irresponsible, these people will continue to be a menace long after every Pit dog is destroyed, they will move on to another type of dog...and the cycle will continue...lets just target the problem!

That is similar to the laws in my area. One thing that I have also heard of around here is homeowners associations creating rules in their bylaws. If you are in breach they just go after you civilly.

Yep. Detroit Animal Control, Humane Society Agents and Police Officers can and do take any pitbulls into custody that are being handled by anyone under the age of 18, unless they are being directly supervised by an adult. The dogs are then put down at the shelter headquarters. They even euthanize the pups up there. They have a no tolerence policy.

Ian

Amen to that! My girlfriend works as a groomer at Petco and the whole store sends people in there to her to ask training questions. Meanwhile, their so called trainer sits around on a cash register. I've even seen him go ask her for advice!

Ian

 Quote:

Yep. Detroit Animal Control, Humane Society Agents and Police Officers can and do take any pitbulls into custody that are being handled by anyone under the age of 18, unless they are being directly supervised by an adult. The dogs are then put down at the shelter headquarters. They even euthanize the pups up there. They have a no tolerence policy.

Ian

I was wondering is this a "Pit" only policy or does it apply to other dogs on the aggresive dog hit list such as Rots or ABs?