"Fighting Dog" Breed Ban Article

[Stacy White]

Messages in the degradation of this thread stemming from the thought that "my dogs can write a better article" have been removed. Please keep your messages related to Breed Specific Legislation and the fight against it.

[Burnsway]

Quote By Redmoss:

I am truly amazed that this man's occupation is writing because practically everything
that I've read here is a thousand times better written. Maybe he has to sensationalize
and mislead for impact because his writing is pathetic.

First Redmoss

I want to welcome you to the forum!! I only own mixed mutts myself. But to me, Breed bans and certain laws like this are a joke!!! You are right about his writting, mine isn't much better but If I was putting it out there to fight a point I would hire a writer if I had too..... :D

Second,
If you notice on his site the ban bad owners is ahead on the vote.... :D :D :D

[godfreyc]

German Vargas stated: So, if the question is "Can mixed-breeds bite?", the answer is a categorical "Yes!!! They can and they do!".

I would even take that one step further German. When people can pick up a cute little free puppy out of a box in front of the grocery store, things like vet care, proper training often times fly out the window because they couldn't afford the dog in the first place. If that dog happens to be a large breed cross then it spells trouble.

[poohbearsmom]

Well.... I haven't gotten another response from Emil. Perhaps he doesn't want to work together???????
Going to work now so I can feed my fighting dogs. Have a nice day all.
Elisabeth

[Goose's Guardian]

Originally posted by New2Rotties:
<STRONG>
The only thing that banning breeds would accomplish would be that the people who truly love the breed and aim to better the breed would be punished and the criminals or irresponsible owners would continue to breed.
</STRONG>

Very good point.

[Muckdogs]

I just emailed him and simply called him an idiot. Maybe he'll respond with something far more intelligent than his article. That wouldn't be hard now, would it? :D

[alexav]

Awesome letter Kevin!!!! He picked that little piece out because the rest of the letter is so good, he can't possibly argue with it intellegently! :p

[sara979]

what an idiot!! never seen so much ignorance in my life! heres one for him since hes so stuck on this FIGHTING DOG b.s. akita's are heard to be 'chinese fighting dogs'! and terriors are mean also ...its the PEOPLE that own & train these dogs to be like this not the BREED! If this FOOL owned a dog and was in danger, say being robbed, i bet his dog wouldnt hesitate to stay and defend him! RRR how irritating!!!

[Troy]

German, do you believe that there will ever be an instance where someone could challenge a breed specific ban all the way to the Supreme Court? I mean, couldn't we end all this nonsense with a decision at that level, provided they would agree to hear the case...?
I believe there are several areas of argument that show breed bans are an infringement on the constutional rights of individuals. What do you think???

[Amber Joy]

Here is a copy of my letter to him:
You are absolutely right! But only about one thing in your article-it is terrible when someone is attacked by a dog, but I am going to tell you that all you're going to do is have only bad people breeding those breeds instead of the ones that should be. Drug dealers and dog fighters are already breaking several laws; do you really think breaking one more will make them stop and reconsider. What needs done, is stricter owner penalties. Right now, there really aren't any good ones. I think if your dog kills someone, you ought to be charged with canine manslaughter. We have vehicular manslaughter, why not canine manslaughter. That means fines and jail time, maditory, as well as destroying the responsible animal. I also think if a dog attacks but doesn't kill, you should be able to charge them with canine assault and battery. Same penalties if it were human to human instead of canine to human. That would make some people think twice about owning those breeds, but the people who would are the irresponsible ones. Don't ban good breeders, make it very hard and painful for bad breeders, and bad owners, to have those dogs. Maybe having people apply for a liscence to own those breeds would be helpful. Make them pay, upfront, for a basic obedience class, and if they don't attend, their liscence is revoked and they lose their dog. Make vet checks manditory, and make them have proof. Outlaw the sale of dogs in pet shops, and make breeders prove they checked the homes, and liscences of the people they're selling to. Any good breeder checks the homes already anyway. There are alot better solutions than taking good dogs away from good owners. Isn't that punishing the many for the actions of the few. Do you realize how many rottweiler owners there are in America? But they were almost at the end of the "dog bite statistics", meaning out of all the breeds, including mutts in one category, they were one of the lowest biting dogs. They just have the bad luck of having very strong jaws. But you'd be taking away therapy dogs, seeing eye dogs, police dogs, rescue dogs, and many, many more wonderful examples of the breed, and the same can be said for the other breeds listed. Why isn't german shepherds on your "hit list"? They had more incidences of biting than rottweilers. So did labrador retrievers!
Please, look into things more before you spout of nonsense about breed bans, and consider all the options. It is tragic when something like this happens, but the problem will not go away by doing away with certain breeds. The bad people will just choose another breed to use.

Sorry it's so long...I had alot to say about it! I hope it helps!

[Mattweiser]

here is what I just sent Mr Guillermo:

Mr Guillermo,

I am writing you in response to your article on banning "fighting breeds".

First I would like to point out an error in your terminology. The Rottweiler breed is not a fighting breed. Fighting breeds are dogs that have been selectively bred to produce high levels of dog-aggression, meaning that dogs that hate other dogs and exhibit high levels of active-aggression (by the way, a very uncommon trait in any canine). The Rottweiler was bred for many purposes; draft work, police and military service, herding of livestock... but never for fighting other dogs.

Second, I would like to provide some background information. Canines, especially in the wild, rarely engage in active aggression. Flight or flight syndrome occurs anytime a dog is fearful for his life, or well being. This results in the dog fleeing (thus insuring it's survival) the situation.

A fighting dog is different.... it has been selectively bred by humans to show an otherwise undesirable trait (active dog-aggression).

Third, let's discuss dogs that attack humans. All breeds of dogs were bred by humans to be trainable by humans. Even fighting breeds are human friendly (they do not attack humans just other dogs). Dogs that attack humans were either improperly socialized (abuse, or lack of appropriate human contact), or were the results of improper breeding (dogs that have mental instabilities pass this poor character quality on to their offspring), or oftentimes both... No dog, even the notorious American Pit Bull Terrier is born naturally human-aggressive... certain bloodlines may carry this trait, but the breed as a whole does not... If it did, there would be more instances of owners being mauled and killed by their own dogs..

Instead negligent ownership of these strong, muscular, athletic dogs id to blame for the abundant, and truly saddening instances of dog attacks.....

If you actually digest any portion of my long, boring letter, please let it be the next section!

Any breed of dog could be bred for dog fighting, any breed.... or any mixed breed for that matter. All it would take is one person with very limited knowledge of canine behavior and two dogs..... If you propose any type of breed ban, you will only affect the law abiding, responsible owners of that ban.... The undesirables in our society always have and always will find a new avenue with which to satisfy their desires....

If you ban any specific "fighting breed" another will pop up in its place.
A specific breed is not to blame, it is the owner of the individual dog that is responsible

I sincerely look forward to discussing this matter with you further.


Best Regards,
Matthew Moore

[Amber Joy]

To my long letter, here is the response I got:
thanks for your thoughtful response.

Emil Guillermo
I was hoping for a bit more of a response, as to if he still thought the breed ban was a good idea, and told him so. I think he's wishing he'd never said a word!

[rottie597]

I too wrote to Mr. Guillermo asking him not to perpetuate the hateful stereotyping/profiling from which this country is trying so hard to recover. It doesn't matter what you're stereotyping...the process is dangerous in itself. I also mentioned that by banning certain"dangerous" breeds...people would become complacent with all other "harmless breeds" and fail to exercise the good judgement which should be used around all breeds of dog. This complacency once got a VICIOUS black Lab within inches of my Mother's throat...it had been locked up and teased by the children in its family...a "nice" well to do family..not drug dealers ;)

[ July 17, 2001: Message edited by: Stacy White ]