Posted on 02/28/2009 11:31:01 AM PST by BGHater
A new bill on pit bulls that hasn't even hit the Senate floor yet is already getting a lot of heat from folks on both side of the issue.
Under a bill from Sen. Bruce Starr's office, owning a pit bull would be illegal in Oregon and the state would punish those who own one by euthanizing the dog, slapping the owner with thousands of dollars in fines and perhaps even throwing them in jail. And if your pit bull killed someone? Then you could be fined $125,000, spend five years in jail or both.
Those who already own a pit bull would be grandfathered in, so to speak. They would have to obtain a permit to keep the pit bull (for a fee) and provide a certificate from a veterinarian showing that the dog had been sterilized.
Here is the summary that is laid out in the draft of the bill:
Prohibits keeping of pit bull. Creates exception for pit bulls currently in state upon meeting certain conditions. Declares pit bull dangerous dog and makes keeping of pit bull punishable by euthanization of dog and by maximum of $6,250 fine, one year's imprisonment, or both. If dog kills person, punishes by maximum of $125,000 fine, five years' imprisonment, or both. Read the entire bill (pdf)
The bill has not had a first reading on the Senate floor yet. That is expected in a week or two.
“I’m curious how they decide what’s a pit bull?”
Pretty much the same as they do where I live.
They target purebreds which play a minuscule part in the problem
(when they banned AmStaffs here in Ontario there were 2 dozen in an area comparable to Texas)
and any dog that is “substantially” similar
From the PDF attached to the article:
(b) “Pit bull’” means a dog that:
(A) Is registered or otherwise listed as an American pit bull terrier,
Staffordshire bull terrier or American Staffordshire terrier with a dog
breed club or league, dog fanciers association. breed registry or similar
organization; or
(B) Has an appearance and physical characteristics that substantially
conform to the breed standards of the United Kennel Club for
an American pit bull terrier or of the American Kennel Club for a
Staffordshire bull terrier or an American Staffordshire terrier, as
those standards existed on January 1, 2009.
I don’t know where you live, probably not where they have passed these stupid laws, but they are EVERYWHERE. It’s crazy how fast this is all coming about. Of course, since I show and breed mine are intact as well (until they retire) but we’ll see. PETA’s goal is complete annialation of all pets. Ingrid Newkirk was quite clear years ago. Animals are not ours to own.
Well, yes and no. I don’t see it, but I believe it! Better watch out! ;)
Oh my, yes, it’s not fish eggs. Sheesh! I’m trying to finish stuff up for the golden specialty, and here I am trying to type anything that makes sense. I can’t multitask!
Tennessee and it wouldn’t matter, I’ll not obey an irrational law.
Yes, I think drug thugs register their dogs with a club! And of course, most people can’t pick a pit out of a lineup. This is typical stupid government, aided by stupid people. Again I say, leash laws, dangerous dog laws (based on dog’s behavior) and make people responsible for their animals. But, you know, it’s far easier just to ban something than to require people to be responsible.
LOL...no problem...I used to think the phrase was “tow the line” until I looked up the origin of the saying, and it is in fact “toe the line”....perhaps that’s what you were thinking of (at least that’s the excuse I’d use ;-)
I suspect ultimately you could end up with huge fines and jail time. I hope it never comes to that, but these humaniac Nazis will stop at nothing...
Who knows what I was thinking! I have noticed the past year my typing has gotten much worse, probably my PN (now there’s an excuse!) but usually I catch mistakes before I hit send! And I like tow the line, as long as it’s not too heavy!
It could happen, but so far the people around here tend to be less likely to put up with nonsense from busybodies than the average.
I’ll take my chances, accept the consequences and deal with them when I get out.
Well, if everyone would stand up to them like you it wouldn’t be an issue because they can’t arrest everyone.
I would only add:
and a multi-pronged education effort to teach what being a responsible owner entails.
The problem with standing up to them
is that you risk the destruction of your dogs.
I’m willing to do the time if it comes to that
but to put my dog’s life at risk by my actions
is something I can’t bring myself to do.
Yes, but we’ve been doing that as long as I’ve been involved in the dog fancy (since the 80s). I think things are better, so it’s worked to some extent, but stupid and irresponsible people simply don’t bother with things that they don’t want to do, like pick up after their dogs, keep them on leashes or on their property, train them, etc. I think we should ban stupid and irresponsible people!
Great shots of your dog on your page!
So you would rather let someone else dictate your behavior and mutilate your dogs?
If it comes to that, I’ll be going to jail long enough that I would never see my boys and girls again anyway.
There’s two possible reactions to an attack on your pets, fight and take your chances or roll over and hand them your own nuts and a knife.
HB 1982 (regulation of vicious or dangerous dogs) was introduced by San Antonio's own Representative Trey Martinez Fischer (District 116). This bill is word for word San Antonio's vicious/dangerous dog ordinance which in itself is bad enough. However, he's added a twist, the following amendment was added to Chapter 822 of the Health & Safety Code.
RESPONSIBILITY OF DOG OWNER IN CERTAIN MUNICIPALITIES. (a) This section applies only to a city with a population of more than one million. This would include San Antonio
(b)A person who owns or keeps custody or control of a dog weighing 40 pounds or more shall ensure that the dog, at any time the dog is not on a leash in the immediate control of a person, is kept inside a residence or in a secure enclosure on the premises where the dog is kept.
What does this mean? Simply put; no more hunting with dogs over 40 pounds. No more large breed dogs in the dog parks. Dogs over 40 pounds wouldn't be able to compete in any off-leash competitions; obedience, fly-ball, weight pull, agility, herding, etc. This is a very bad law.
Does your lab weigh more than 40 pounds? Your pointer? Your standard poodle? These laws will only get more inclusive.
My dog is neutered but that was my choice.
He does not meet breed standards and therefore I would not breed him.
If a dog is not to be used for breeding it is best in my opinion to have him neutered.
Study documents that unneutered dogs are 2.6 times more likely to bite than neutered dogs;
and male dogs are 6.2 times more likely to bite than female dogs.
-Gershman KA, Sacks JJ, Wright JC, Which Dogs Bite?
Of 28 single dogs responsible for a fatal attack between 2000-2001; 26 were males
Of the 26 male dogs involved in human fatalities, 21 were not neutered.
The reproductive status of the remaining 5 could not be determined.
-Fatal Dog Attacks, Karen Delise, page 93, based on CDC data
For sure it should be your choice whether to neuter your dogs or not,
but it should be an informed choice, with the understanding that
the behavior of an intact male differs from that
of a neutered dog in significant ways.
FIND THE PITBULL: http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.