Sensible dog laws

[Sassy]

I have been doing my homework thought you might want to read these:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/new..._19990630.html


this one really outta get your blood boiling:
http://cartalk.cars.com/About/Rant/r-rlast23.html


[This message has been edited by Sassy (edited January 10, 2001).]

[whitney greenway]

Sassy,
That guy did get my blood boiling! He is completely off in left field! Ignorance is not the answer!

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by German Vanegas:
[b]
Because of lack of understanding about canine behavior, some powerful groups, such as the Insurance Industry, US Postal Service, Peta, and others, are pressing politicians to enact laws banning specific breeds and restricting others. Sadly enough, our beloved breed, the great Rottweiler, has been targeted as a dangerous dog. It is a sad reality of life: irresponsible people have mishandled and misused the breed so bad, that has caused too many unjustified dog attacks and bites.</font>

Just for the record, PETA (although some individual members - PETA has over 600,000 - may have posted their differing personal opinions on various websites) *DOES NOT* support breed specific legislation.
In fact, they have supported individual breeds in many ways - most recently, they offered a $500 reward for any information on the abuser of a Rottweiler.



[This message has been edited by Justice (edited January 11, 2001).]

[German Vanegas]

It is a fact that some people, proudly identifying themselves as PETA activists, have posted in different Internet protection dog boards, that "protection dog training is cruel and barbaric" and "that protection dogs have no place in our modern society". Those PETA activists clearly stated that they are against protection dog breeds, or "the guard breeds" as they call it, and that they also support outlawing of protection dog training, or "attack dog training" as they prefer to call it. PETA activists have stated that "dogs bred and trained to guard have their temperaments ruined, making dogs a menace to society" (TOTALLY FALSE). It appears like some PETA members have little knowledge about canine behavior, traits, drives, heritage, etc., and consequently they take inflexible attitudes. A well-intended organization, but sometimes their activism is too extreme, thus becoming quite radical in pursue of their ideals. While they may no support specific breed legislation, nevertheless they seem to support certain restrictions related to "guard breeds and attack training". The two are wrong terms with misleading concepts http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/wink.gif

[Brandysmom]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by whitney greenway:
I think that these laws are a good thing! It would be nice to see something like this happen all over! Banning the OFFENDING dog, rather than the WHOLE breed!</font>

Any suggestions on how we can get the legislators of other states to use these guidelines?

[whitney greenway]

Yes, here is my suggestion. Grass roots efforts by all dog owners throughout the United States.

[German Vanegas]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by whitney greenway:
Yes, here is my suggestion. Grass roots efforts by all dog owners throughout the United States. </font>

You got it! http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/smile.gif

Contact your state legislators. Inform them about the facts concerning canine behavior, irresponsible breeding and irresponsible dog ownership. Clarify to your state politicians that ANY given dog breed has the potential to bite, period. And that the law should target and penalized the legions of irrepsonsible people (breeders and dog owners), and not the poor dogs manipulated only by humans. Please, do not write to your politicians with blind passion and extreme attitudes. Instead use a cool head and plenty of FINESSE http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/wink.gif

[whitney greenway]

The only way to do it would to be calm, clear and concise. Otherwise, you will just come off as an EXTREMIST!

[Grumbler]

Hello German,

I admire your laws down there in Good Old Texas Partner http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/biggrin.gif. They are society protective, not Breed specific!! Here is another dog bite that has made media attention in our area. http://www.s-t.com/daily/01-01/01-11-01/a01lo011.htm

It has the makings of one of your other posts........dog or owner? After reading the article it is obvious that the owner was responsible for the dog biting his buddy. About 5 years ago the councilors at large in the city brought up debate for the banning of pit bulls. It didn't pass. Glad, because if that would have or does in the future I can guarantee that they will then proceed to ban other dogs such as our Breed. Fortunately, I live in a surrounding town and our Selectman are currently dog friendly http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/biggrin.gif

Again, German....I mean Texas http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/wink.gif http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/wink.gif....Good statutory laws on protecting citizens not banning dog breeds!!! http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/wink.gif

Oh by the way how can you get these laws to Germany???????????...........lmao

See Ya buddy..........Hooah!

------------------
GUCCI'S DAD
Doug

[German Vanegas]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Grumbler:
I admire your laws down there in Good Old Texas Partner http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/biggrin.gif. They are society protective, not Breed specific!! Here is another dog bite that has made media attention in our area. http://www.s-t.com/daily/01-01/01-11-01/a01lo011.htm

It has the makings of one of your other posts........dog or owner?

Again, German....I mean Texas http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/wink.gif http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/wink.gif....Good statutory laws on protecting citizens not banning dog breeds!!! http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/wink.gif

Oh by the way how can you get these laws to Germany???????????...........lmao

</font>

Thanks bro!

It is very sad that in Germany politicians did not address the dog biting problem correctly and, instead, they arbitrarily decided to ban and restrict many dog breeds... some of them with no record of biting anyone at all!... but they used the classification "potential to bite"... Gheeee! with that kind of mindless reasoning German politicians may as well have banned a couple of hundreds breeds!!! http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/frown.gif

Hooooooa!!!!!

[RSQRottweiler]

What a great topic. . . and it's REALLY making me think about moving to Texas! http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/smile.gif

If my memory serves me correctly (which it usually doesn't, but just go with me on this), didn't some of the (proposed?)legislation in Europe require temperament testing of only certain breeds? How much of a stink do you think the "general dog-owning public" would make if those laws were applied to ALL breeds/types here in the U.S.? I mean, if a law was proposed to require only Rotties, Pitbulls, and the other "dangerous" breeds to take a temperament test (all dogs that didn't pass would have to be neutered, owners would pay a higher license fee, tougher penalties for leash law violations, etc.), you know that most of the general public would support a measure to control those "dangerous dogs." But what would happen if that legislation expanded to include all dogs over 40 lbs, or better yet, all dogs of all breeds/types/mixes? Suddenly the rah-rah BSL supporters might have to be more responsible for their own dogs instead of banning everyone else's.

That was my thought for the day. My brain hurts now.

Audrey

[RSQRottweiler]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by German Vanegas:
The problem is that a Government designed and implemented temperament test has proven to be totally unrealistic! As I have said before, even "Lassie" would have a hard time passing it! That's the problem. The Government do not want dogs to be dogs, but if you think about it for a moment: what do you expect politicians to know about canine behavior?!... Yep! Nothing!!!</font>

I didn't really think about that. . .I mean, I know that 99.99% of politicians don't have a clue about dogs (or much of anything, really). The thought of them designing any sort of test, or agreeing to sponsor a test designed by AR extremist/dog-haters, is frightening.

I suppose you can't really require dog owners to DO something like take a temperament test. There are just too many dogs and too many people in this country (and too much paperwork as it is). That's the problem with BSL, and the reason why it doesn't work. It requires owners of the targeted breeds to DO something that other dog owners are not required to do (like pay extra fees, put up extra fences, or purchase special equipment). Yeah, if my township suddenly decided to require that all Rottweilers get a special license, *I'd* fork over the extra money so that I could keep my boy (at least until I had a chance to move somewhere else). That doesn't mean the guy down the street with the chained-up "rockwilders" would do the same. The minute one of his dogs gets loose and hurts someone, the entire breed is blamed (again).

I'd rather see laws that clearly state what dog OWNERS -- of any breed/type/mix -- CANNOT do, and that punish the owners who break those laws. It would also be nice to do away with those laws that allow criminals to sue their victims for not putting up warning signs about a dog on the property, or the equally-stupid laws that allow criminals to use "Beware of Dog"-type signs as evidence of having a dangerous dog. I don't know if that will ever happen, but it'd be great if it did.

Audrey

[German Vanegas]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by RSQRottweiler:
...didn't some of the (proposed?)legislation in Europe require temperament testing of only certain breeds? How much of a stink do you think the "general dog-owning public" would make if those laws were applied to ALL breeds/types here in the U.S.? I mean, if a law was proposed to require only Rotties, Pitbulls, and the other "dangerous" breeds to take a temperament test (all dogs that didn't pass would have to be neutered, owners would pay a higher license fee, tougher penalties for leash law violations, etc.)... </font>

The problem is that a Government designed and implemented temperament test has proven to be totally unrealistic! As I have said before, even "Lassie" would have a hard time passing it! That's the problem. The Government do not want dogs to be dogs, but if you think about it for a moment: what do you expect politicians to know about canine behavior?!... Yep! Nothing!!!

[German Vanegas]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by RottiVet:
... Encouraging a dog to be aggressive is more irresponsible than not training him at all...</font>

For the record, protection dog training is not exactly about encouraging aggression on a dog, that's a misconception. Protection training is about developing a dog's inborn genetic defensive drive or fight drive (IF it has it)to guard and defend his/er family pack and/or property.

Instigating aggression for the sake of making a dog mean towards people, is not what protection training is all about, that is simply irresponsible dog ownership. Albeit most dog owners cannot handle a protection-trained dog, and is true that most people do better with an alert watchdog, it is important to emphasize that protection-trained dogs are of stable sound temperaments and can be sociable, as long as the dog is not under threat and in a friendly environment, although a protection dog can "switch modes" when is justified by a menacing situation to his/er pack and/or property.

An uncontrollably aggressive dog is either a "junkyard dog" (fence security dog) or a dangerous antisocial dog (vicious dog), neither of them have a place in a family environment!, period.

It is pertinent to point out also that schutzhund is a dog sport. IF a person wants a personal protection dog out of a schutzhund titled dog, then the schH dog has to be cross-trained in personal protection http://www.rottweiler.net/rottie/wink.gif

[RottiVet]

Preaching to the choir.

...Although, I have read a fair number of replies in which people praise their dogs' "protective" behavior.

In my experienced and considered opinion, any dog living as a family pet should be completely innocuous. Dogs, whether they be terrier or mastiff, deter intruders because of their barks, not their bites. Encouraging a dog to be aggressive is more irresponsible than not training him at all.

If you are dedicated to protection training, etc. spend years getting educated (and licenced) by joining a reputable schutzhund or other Working Dog club. But, know that you will be producing "working dogs" not family pets. Those who know this, have no difficulty with the balancing act.