Replies

I answered you point-by-point and you commenced with an insult ...

I'm not going to go back and re-read every post but if you feel you were insulted, then you have my apology.

The conversation has gotten a bit to heated for FR standards and for my part in that I also apologize. We should stick to the issues.

On the issue of Pitbulls and the need for(or no need of) restriction on these dogs in residential neighborhoods, it is unfortunate we could not come up with a solution.

I remain steadfast in my opinion that these dogs have no place in residential neighborhoods. At the least, pitbull owners should
1)Be required to take a training course to demonstrate they are competant to own a pitbull
2). Post a sizable bond or show proof of insurance to cover any attack
3). The cost of any training courses must be paid for by dog owners.

If you have another suggestion, I am calmly and politely waiting for it.

1). Be required to take a training course to demonstrate they are competant to own a pitbull
2). Post a sizable bond or show proof of insurance to cover any attack
3). The cost of any training courses must be paid for by dog owners.

"We believe that with better enforcement of current legislation and better pet owner education most of these attacks can be prevented."

It was this statement, that you agreed with, that has been the basis for your proposed alternate solutions.
You have not spoken at all to the need for "better enforcement of existing legislation".
Why is that?
You propose additional legislation.
Your ideas so far only focus on the educational aspect of the recommendation.
They are breed/type specific, they would do nothing to prevent attacks by other breeds.
You have stated...

We have a problem in this city with Pitbulls - actually a problem with loose dogs and kids owning them because they think it is tough.

Which indicates to me that your problem is not breed/type specific.
What I would ask you is, do you believe your 3 recommendations would have any affect on your cities particular problem?

If there is a problem with loose dogs, does your city not have the manpower or the will to enforce what I am assuming are its pre-existing laws against free roaming dogs?
Does your city not already have licensing requirements for dogs and if so are the "kids owning them because they think it is tough" in compliance?

The comment in question "I answered you point-by-point and you commenced with an insult ..." was addressed to wristspin who'd begun his immediately prior to it with " Dang... you blather on like a silly girl!" after I'd patiently and point-by-point, IMHO, completely refuted his emotionally-driven, pro-PETA nonsense.

While I don't agree with your 'registration' position both because it essentially incorporates the 'breed' concept rejected by all major learned animal welfare bodies & takes a big government shotgun approach which discriminates against otherwise law-abiding & responsible dog-owners, it's a damned site more reasonable than demanding the wholesale killing of their pets based upon little justification beyond posting one biased & sensationalized msm 'story' after another. (sheeesh!)

The primary flaw within any 'breed' based ban (or restriction-based "ban-lite" as you're advocating) is the lack (and impossibility) of any definitive and legally-binding definition as to what precisely constitutes a 'pit bull type' of dog.

To me, the proper philosophical 'conservative' approach to the joint problem of irresponsible owners with vicious dogs must be based upon our accepted tenets:

1. individual responsibility & personal accountability: ergo, no shotgun solutions.

2. the least possible number of good, reason-based laws with same fully & fairly enforced.

Accordingly, we should be rigorously applying existing statutes aimed at derelict animal ownership &, if they're unworkable, replacing them with ones which are.

As virtually all legitimate animal experts tell us 'breed ban laws' are unfair, arbitrary & impractical, enacting them amounts to the standard liberal modus operandi of piling bad law upon bad law & never taking any of them off the books - no wonder lawyers love 'em!

And, if you re-read noting else I've so far posted, please check-out #332 on the - anything but 'conservative'! - negative civil liberties aspects of any draconian, PETA-endorsed 'breed ban law' "solution".