Pitt Bull, Rottweiler Ban in Louisiana

[CrunchyCripple]

Originally Posted by mr black

You are forgetting the real reason why pits and rotts are being banned in the first place.

One of your main arguments is inaccurate bite statistics. You say a large percentage of bites attributed to Pits are actually mutts that are labeled Pits because they can't pick out a breed. That's why they banned not only pits but a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to those of bit bulls.

That's stupid. Can't you see how stupid that is? It's based from fear and casting a wide net. It's usually at the discretion of the animal control officer, weather your dog is a pit bull mix or not. Who cares that it's never been loose, growled at, scratched or bitten anyone. Who cares if it's just a Boxer Beagle mix? The ACO thinks it looks "bully", so it's dead.

If you own a mutt that has never hurt anyone, they should not be able to seize and destroy it.

Mislabeled biters and mislabeled innocent dogs are two different groups and subjects. Throwing them all into the same bucket is not the right answer.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by sunairco

While you're adressing legislative bans, there's a much more insidious one going on behind your backs.

Insurance Companies.

Many are cancelling policies, raising rates, or refusing to write ones if you have on of the dogs known to be on a list. My parents had chows. Last one died 13 years ago. They got a letter from their insurance company notifying them they were in the possession of a Dangerous dog obtainied from a county vaccination records and it will affect the status of their insurance. A simple call cleared that one up, but you can already see there's an effort to reduce liability exposure not only to certain breeds, but large breeds in general.

This is how some of the anti-gun organizations are trying to pull a back door approach if gun contrtol legislation won't pass. Own a firearm and your insurance policy will be recised or rates vastly raised. Give up your weapons or suffer the rates that won't make it worth it to own.

Animal rights groups like have managed to convince townships to ban the sales of any kittens or puppies in some places to deter pet ownership or breeding. I don't get the logic of owning a pet is paramount to supporting an abusive industry or animal cruelty.

Insurance companies are in business to make money.

Because of the actions of irresponsible dog owners the majority will have to cover the lost profits.

Its no different than the reasons that a young male driver pays more for insurance. The vast majority of young male drivers might be responsible, but statistically there are a higher percentage of them that have severe accidents that cause insurance companies big settlements.
Statistically the vast majority of people that own large dogs might be responsible, but a large dog is far more able to do serious damage than a small dog. A poodle might bite more people, but a pit bull is capable of killing a person, thus a higher settlement must be paid out.

If you believe in free markets then the insurance companies are free to charge as much as they like, and if you're not satisfied with the rates offered you are free to spend your money elsewhere.

I'm kind of surprised this didn't happen a long time ago.

[Illusion]

Originally Posted by CrunchyCripple

That's stupid. Can't you see how stupid that is? It's based from fear and casting a wide net. It's usually at the discretion of the animal control officer, weather your dog is a pit bull mix or not. Who cares that it's never been loose, growled at, scratched or bitten anyone. Who cares if it's just a Boxer Beagle mix? The ACO thinks it looks "bully", so it's dead.

If you own a mutt that has never hurt anyone, they should not be able to seize and destroy it.

Mislabeled biters and mislabeled innocent dogs are two different groups and subjects. Throwing them all into the same bucket is not the right answer.

All you seem to want is to drag me into this personal argument, which I want no part of. I'm going to be totally honest with you here. I don't care. I don't care about you or your dog.

Pit bulls and pit bull mixes were Toronto’s biggest biters, before the ban. Data shows that before Ontario banned them nearly a decade ago, pit bulls did more biting per capita than other breeds, however today’s neutered, muzzled pit bulls registered only 13 bites last year. As far as I'm concerned, we don't have a problem anymore. I'm done with this. Thank you.

If you would like to sign a petition to overturn the ordinance, you can here: https://www.facebook.com/savingzeusybaby?pnref=story

[Illusion]

Indiana Man Mauled to Death by Pet Dog on Christmas



A northwest Indiana man was mauled to death by one of his pet pit bulls on Christmas Day, police said.
Authorities were called to a home in the 5500 block of Tulip Avenue about 8:14 p.m. after 40-year-old Edward L. Cahill was found on his living room floor by his girlfriend, according to a Portage police report. She had returned from visiting relatives for the holiday when she found him unresponsive.

When police arrived, they found Cahill dead on the floor covered in blood and with multiple lacerations on his face and arms, according to the report. Porter County Coroner Chuck Harris pronounced Cahill dead at the scene and ruled his death a dog mauling.
He was apparently mauled by “Fat Boy,” one of his pet pit bulls, according to the report. The dog was aggressively barking, growling and lunging at officers when they arrived at the house, and police had to use a stun gun and an animal control pole to get him under control and remove him from the home.

The couple has had their dogs since they were puppies, according to the report. The police report also noted that “Fat Boy” has always been aggressive and bit Cahill and his girlfriend’s son in the past.

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local...#ixzz3N8Es7v31


Merry Christmas CrunchyCripple

[winvens]

[sunairco]

True, mitigation of risk has always been their business model. Yet, lobbying inusurance companies to support social engineering is something relatively new that creates a mutually beneficial return to both parties.

Nobody thought it unusual for a family to buy a big dog for protection when I was a kid, likewise owning a firearm for hunting or self protection, more recently smoking or drinking.

All have either been made socially unacceptable and the insurance companies were employed to further the aims of the special interersts. You're health insurance premium rises if you're a smoker or there is clinical evidence of being an alcoholic or drink excessively. Think before you check the box or tell the dr that you have a drink more often then once a month. I had to fight down a premium raise just because some asshole specialist that I went to noted that I'm a smoker and denied it. I lived with a smoker, so my clothing was saturated with the smell.

There is lobbying efforts by temperence groups to require point of sale terminals to gather purchaser data of alcohol or beer. It sounds orwellian for a state to maintain a database of what might be considered excessive alcohol purchase. The primary objective is to flag an officer doing a routine background check that you might have been drinking and get extra scruitny at a traffic stop.
How long do you think it's going to be before the information brokers will be selling that info to insurance companies. Hell, if they sold my parent's long dead dog's vaccination records to their insurance company, what else?

Originally Posted by rob666

Insurance companies are in business to make money.

Because of the actions of irresponsible dog owners the majority will have to cover the lost profits.

Its no different than the reasons that a young male driver pays more for insurance. The vast majority of young male drivers might be responsible, but statistically there are a higher percentage of them that have severe accidents that cause insurance companies big settlements.
Statistically the vast majority of people that own large dogs might be responsible, but a large dog is far more able to do serious damage than a small dog. A poodle might bite more people, but a pit bull is capable of killing a person, thus a higher settlement must be paid out.

If you believe in free markets then the insurance companies are free to charge as much as they like, and if you're not satisfied with the rates offered you are free to spend your money elsewhere.

I'm kind of surprised this didn't happen a long time ago.

[candice81]

Originally Posted by mr black

60% of fatal attacks despite being the minority. Thank you.

Also, take a look at all the pit bull victims. Pits usually target children. That's why I made the comment regarding children on the first page.



The Following 9 Users Disliked mr black For This Post:
candice81, CrunchyCripple, GODISNOTGREAT, juliemd, K9Grip, MadCore, Mr Poo, Pit Bull, Sybil


Yea, fuck you too.

Just disagree is all, its not a fuck you.

[Illusion]

Originally Posted by candice81

Just disagree is all, its not a fuck you.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Whether you agree with me or not, we definitely had a problem with this type of breed in the past. I think it was more of a problem in the inner city where most of the idiot owners would use their dogs to intimate people. Think about it this way. Owners of firearms and pit bulls share quite a bit in common. If you handle either one wrong, it's likely that somebody or something will get hurt. On the other hand, if you spend time with them, handle them correctly, and act responsibly, they will give years of enjoyment and protection to you and your family. I'm a dog lover. So are most of my family and friends, but it's the irresponsible owners that have ruined it for everyone else.

[rob666]

At least with a firearm you need to go through training, screening, and a firearm is 100% predictable.

[CrunchyCripple]

Originally Posted by rob666

At least with a firearm you need to go through training, screening, and a firearm is 100% predictable.

Need to? Yes. Does everyone who has a gun do those requirements? Absolutely not.

Mechanical objects do not have a brain, so they do not make choices, but they are not 100% predictable. They can and do malfunction. They also harm and kill waaaay more people a year than all deaths by animals combined.

Cars also have the requirement of classes and licensing, but they also kill waaaay more people than animals do. They are also not 100% predictable. Nothing is.

That's life