Ya, it reads a bit confusing, but what it means is there is no State-wide ban, but there can be individual city bans. In Co, Denver, Aurora, Commerce City, Thornton have some sort of BSL, but in Lakewood, Littleton, Golden (All Denver subs) you can have a PB.

Citation: FL ST 767.14
Im not the best at reading laws, my understanding of this is that they cant put a law into effect that is breed specific? Wouldnt the Miami Dade law, have violated this?



Citation: West's F. S. A. § 767.14

Summary: This Florida statute provides that nothing in the dangerous dog act limits the ability of local governments from enacting restrictions on dangerous dogs more severe than the state law, as long as the regulations are not breed-specific.


Statute in Full:

Nothing in this act shall limit any local government from placing further restrictions or additional requirements on owners of dangerous dogs or developing procedures and criteria for the implementation of this act, provided that no such regulation is specific to breed and that the provisions of this act are not lessened by such additional regulations or requirements. This section shall not apply to any local ordinance adopted prior to October 1, 1990.

 Quote: jonathan deluna

The Pit Bull Conundrum is not a dog problem but a societal problem. Fear fuels the media, it sells papers and boosts ratings. The American Pit Bull Terrier is constantly misrepresented through false generalizations and the public labeling any Bully type dog a Pit Bull, which is nothing more then a misused general term and not a breed. The dog is a scapegoat for irresponsible people. ...
...
Jonathan

I agree. That is the conundrum I was refering to. Specifically:

Pit Bulls have an image of being vicious, so "tough guys" buy them and don't do any research about socializing and training a dog. This means that, statistically, it is more likely for a pit-bull to be in a situation where they become neurotic because of poor socialization and abuse. Pit Bulls (having a higher percentage of neurotic (poorly bred, non-socialized, ignored, tormented, and untrained) animals per capita than other breeds) are more likely to attack someone (NOT! Because they are pit bulls, but because pit bulls attract the type of person who wants to own a "Mean" dog and won't take steps to control it). Newspaper articles about pit bull attacks increase, which propogates their popularity with tough guys, and perpetuates the cycle.

I just read this article and I must say the news is very accurate, as I am ROTFL. Now this isn't the first time a "Pit Bull" was used in a head line only to show a picture of a dog that wasn't even a bully type breed, but they even state what breed the dog is a few lines into the story. http://www3.whdh.com/news/articles/national/BO60355/
I hope everyone can get a laugh out of this.
On the Understand a bull that was linked on here I found a page of dogs misidentified in the media as "Pit Bulls".
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/MistakenIdentity/WrongId.htm

Living in southern California I am very aware of the "tough guy" with his rare blue or red nose "pit bull". The funny thing is these dogs are not APBT. They are a misnamed mix of dogs or bandogge that are poorly bred for the "rare" color or a huge head, wide chest and low to the ground stance. They recently started a KC to seperate them and want to call these dogs american bullies. I have a friend with a 36lb APBT that gets laughed at by some of these so called "tough guys" because his "Pit" is so small and must be mixed. The dog is somewhat DA but he never takes it to dog parks and it's behavior in public with people and children is outstanding and obedient. Most of the public are shocked to hear that this cute fun loving little dog is a American Pit Bull Terrier. I don't trust this dog around my dogs, but when my 2 yo nephew comes up to him he starts to wag his tail and rolls over on his back.
The funny thing about the pit bull conundrum is I have talked to people that take most of the media with a grain of salt knowing the sensationlism they push, but when it comes to "pit bulls" they will recite the news as if the reporter is the worlds foremost canine expert. It doesn't help that organizations like PETA and the HSUS feed both the left, right and middle news organizations a bunch of lies as to the nature of these dogs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070824/us_nm/crime_usa_dmx_dc

I just read this and am disgusted by it. This guy has sold 20 million albums and yet he can't take care of his dogs. He couldn't hire someone to care for these dogs?
I live in Central Florida and it amazes me how many young guys I see with Pitts or Rotties. I'm sure for them the dog just 'adds' to the gangsta image they are trying to project along with the baggy pants hanging down to show the underwear and the bling around their necks.
I watch Animal Planet and am amazed at how many dog fighting rings are discovered and most of the dogs are Pitts. I would love to see these owners treated the way they have treated these dogs.
I believe that most powerful breeds get a bad rap because they ARE powerful, can and have killed people and like I said, some of these breeds are being owned purely for the image. You wouldn't see one of these gangsta wannabe's walking or driving around with a fluffy Bichon. I think if these guys could own lions they would.

 Quote: sandra faye johnson

He couldn't hire someone to care for these dogs?

This link says he did: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20430107/




Andy.

 Quote: natalya zahn

...I would hope that if we did in fact all decide that requiring training and handling skills were necessary to legally own a dog, than the body chosen to manage that system would have to be populated by people who were THEMSELVES trained correctly, it would defeat the entire puprose if politicians passed such a ruling then promptly turned around and put on dog trainer caps...

That's exactly what would happen, it would be politicians and hired staff that would be making the standards. History confirms this. They might even put in some PETA folk to help. They get to decide who has the best "qualifications" to run their little agency.

 Quote: alex corral

This is what I mean Sandy: BSL , More BSL , BSL Petition

My sister & brother in law have had to call the county & their homeowner's company first to see what kind of dog they can have. They were looking at an Am Bulldog, nope. A Dogo, nope. Sorry. They are hoping the Rottie they get, won't get ripped from their home in a few years like all the PBs did in 2005.

This is exactly what I'm writing against. You can bet that BS(L) counties/cities would never get my tax dollars nor would their economy get my business dollars. I wouldn't live there, and yes, I would move if need be. I'd rather sacrifice than calmly accept what others dictate to me if I consider it wrong.

A strong quote from Samuel Adams: "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our country men."

 Quote: john j. miller

Sandy,

I aggree with you more than I disagree, BUT you are using logic that does not apply to this arguement. You do have rights, but rights that pertain to an object of ownership that has the potential to be used to injur or kill another person with rights themselves characteristically require restriction, licensure, and in some cases education. You have a right to drive, as long as you have a license and follow the rules. You have a right to bear arms, as long as you are licensed to to so and are not a felon. A dog in the eyes of the law is an object that we own above all else, and a living thing that deserves humane treatment second. Comparing that to a child which is a living thing that has rights from the moment of conception is apples and oranges....

Logic can be arrived at from many different angles. My angle of logic is based on the end result, namely there are more victims of murder, rape, attack, and thievery from people than any multitude of dogs could ever hurt. Unsupervised children, untrained in the way they should go, uneducated in the mores of society and allowed to grow up that way, reaching their teenage years and adulthood, pose much more threat to people than any dog ever could. So why shouldn't parents be mandated and forced to take classes, for the good of society...my point being that my safety is at the whim of lousy parents who can't handle children and raise them with morals and a conscience.

 Quote: john j. miller

...Me owning my two GSD's and being free to do so does not help me when some time in the future I cannot obtain insurance because our free economy has dictated that the level of risk associated with insuring the GSD breed in general is just too great because of the idiots that own them. Licensing which requires owner responsibility and temperment testing (which all of us here are already doing) would allow insurance companies to only insure the licensed dogs and bring down that risk level to acceptable. I see no other way to cull the morons from the crowd and protect... yes protect our rights.

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, John. I just can't agree with some of it. We can't let insurance companies dictate not only rule of law (by not insuring certain breeds), but also what breed I can own. I know some insurance companies do, but I don't give them my business. If insurance companies have people pull the plug and take their money elsewhere....I'd even pay more to another company to not be subservient to a company who decides for me what dog I can and cannot have.

 Quote: jonathan deluna

..... I have come across more unhinged labs and goldens then any other dog, and in most cases I have felt it was due to owners being irresponsible in the treatment and training of their dogs. Every dog owner needs to consider what their pets can do, wether it is the Pomeranian that killed the newborn in the its crib or the Golden that shook and strangled a little girl to death while the mother was in the kitchen. Accidents happen and as horrifying as they may be the ones with dogs are only a small percentage to those caused by parents, toys, pools, guns, medical malpractice and even food. ...

Very much one of my points. For licensing of dog ownership and government mandated courses, who draws the line at the size of breed of dog. Will there be a line? Where will the line be? Who decides what breeds are "dangerous"? Who defines "dangerous dogs"? Who decides the definition of dangerous bites? Nips from a Yorkie? Punctures from a GSD? Does it have to bleed or just hurt? Would they be allowed to bite while they're still puppies? At what age would the dog not be allowed to bite anymore? 5 months? 6 months? 1 year?

Since all breeds are capable of biting and have bitten, which breeds would require licensing of the owner before owning the dog?

Who gets to make that determination? I don't know anyone who would be able to fairly and justly decide the breeds that should require owner licensing. It's just not humanly possible to make those kinds of judgments - breed, age, type of bite. Would I be required by law to report that my 7 month old got too rowdy and bit my hand, causing a bruise? How far can it be taken?

I assure you, it can and will be taken as extremely far as possible. That's the nature of government, any government. That's why we stand up against these things, and yes stand up for our rights and nip these things in the bud, and continue to nip until the bud dies.

Sandy, I am right there with you!!

Letting private companies like insurance agencies dictate reality is fascist, and I am pretty much anti-fascism. But then again, consider the fact that the halls of congress where the state of the union speech is given, bear the actual symbol of fascism-the bundle of sticks, or fasces, with a sickle in it. Fascism on Wikipedia

Good debate. The only thing I want to say is that there are already plenty of non-breed-specific dangerous dog laws on the books that are not enforced. What makes us think any new laws would be? BSL legislation is a knee-jerk reaction and tends to punish the law abiding citizen whose dog/s have done no harm.

There is no constitutional right to own a dog, only the right to own property. However, the government does have the obligation to protect its citizens (that is really the only reason governments exist), even by restricting rights if necessary. Rights cannot exist without responsibilities. I strongly believe governments should interfere as little as possible, but when innocents are being hurt or killed, through the willful negligence of others government must step in.

BSL is an ineffective, intrusive, and awkward application of this principle. It is almost pointless to argue this though, as people continue to be mauled (whatever the breed.). However unfair it is, the knee-jerk response will just be to extend the bans until all we are left with are dogs weighing ten pounds or less. Politicians listen to voters and the voters screaming "Protect us!" have a stronger need than those shouting "Unfair!" Politicians aren't going to do anything differently until they have a viable alternative.

I agree with Elaine. We have plenty of reasonable laws; they just aren't enforced because most animal control units simply do not have the money. I think our time would be better spent pressuring municipalities and politicians to back up these programs with funds. We really need an outcry about this, especially on the local level. Counties and cities are really where most things can happen, though many people don't pay attention. If licensing and leash laws were enforced, responsible dog owners could relax.

I don't like "us vs. them" mentalities, though I easily fall into them. It isolates the other side (when we need their support) and completely disregards their point of view, which does usually have some merit.