More on the SF dog ban
Eric has more on Frisco’s proposed ban on politically incorrect dogs:
I want to address Newsom’s apparent contention that people who own pit bulls don’t “think what’s in their best interests.” I’ve had these dogs since the mid 1970s, and while I’ve perhaps not written enough posts about this issue, it’s because it makes me so sick that the government would try to take my dogs away because someone doesn’t approve of them that I fear I’d be overly redundant and emotional.
I blog about pit bulls and other politically incorrect dogs all the time. Since I have no problem being overly redundant and emotional, let me state that you will get my dog from my cold dead hands.
Kind of funny how the dog ban parallels gun bans, namely the assault weapons ban. We don’t want to ban dogs but want to ban scary looking dogs based on arbitrary criteria (i.e., appearance) since there is no easy way to genetically identify what breed of dog a specific dog is as they share approximately 99% of their genes with other dogs. And pit bull is not actually a breed but rather a type of dog. Don’t believe me? Go here and play a game of find the pit bull.
Eric also links to what he calls Joe Gandelman’s thoughtful post on the issue, which notes:
But common sense would screech out this: if you have a kid, don’t buy a pit bull.
Actually, common sense would dictate that you don’t leave a kid and a dog unattended. Ever. Regardless of dog breed. And when baby is interacting with the dog, it helps to have a camera handy to capture the savage mauling the child will receive:
Some other tales of pit bull viciousness here and here.
The problem with pit bulls is that people who shouldn’t own any dog and are going for the macho, tough look get pit bulls. They then encourage the animals to be aggressive. Or they’re abusive to the animals. The other problem is that they are the preferred breed of drug dealers and people who engage in the horrendous practice of dog fighting. And, of course, people predisposed to keep dogs that are mean are typically not predisposed to obeying the law.
Pit bulls have better than average temperament and, as Xrlq noted, are not represented fairly in the media. In fact, the media even reports when someone is attacked by a dog and the dog is not a pit bull, that the dog is not a pit bull as if to convey surprise.
The similarity between guns and dogs is striking. We must ban mean looking dogs/guns. Dogs/guns are represented with either ignorance or willful deceit in the media as long as the story can scare someone. Laws passed regarding both are reactionary, ineffective, and not well thought out.
Breed specific legislation is ineffective. We need people control, not dog control.
Fortunately for all involved, California code prohibits breed specific legislation. However, the mayor of San Fran, as Xrlq points out, is not above breaking the law.
Update: Hell has frozen over as Tom agrees with Xrlq.
June 9th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
[…] Main |
Growing problem in SF
|By SayUncle|
Despite the fact such regulation is illegal, SF authorities, who have a history of acting outside th […]
June 7th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
the dog lobby in San Francisco is pretty powerful (and kind of nuts too, but thats a topic for another comment), so this would have a lot of difficulty passing.
June 8th, 2005 at 1:11 am
Actually, I don’t really think it’s the first time. It’s just rare. 🙂
And of course, it shouldn’t surprise you at all that I would agree with him on that subject.
June 8th, 2005 at 10:06 am
Quite sure it’s not the first time, actually. I don’t remember what the topic was last time, but I do remember that it happened.
June 9th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
If pit bulls are lesbian lap dogs, Gavin Newsom has a problem!
“If we can’t change people’s behavior and make them think what’s in their best interest, then that’s when government comes along and becomes a bit paternalistic.” So says San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who’s considering legislation which woul…
June 13th, 2005 at 10:40 am
To Say Uncle: I would like to thank you for your unbiased remarks and truth about these beautiful dogs. (specifically Pit Bulls since they have been targeted. I don’t want to get bogged down in repetitive comments, but I will say that if anyone tries to take my daughter (3 yr. old Staffordshire Terrier) or son (3 yr. old- Old English Sheepdog)((and yes, they get along!)), they will have to pry them from my dead body and limbs.
If they want to pass legislation regarding vicious, breed specific dogs, then they should consider making the punishment to these IRRESPONSIBLE owners more severe! The Pit Bull has an extremely high tolerance for pain and is one of the strongest dogs in the world. If owners of these dogs abuse, train, and allow their dogs to run the streets, kill small children, or act aggressively however small or large the situation, then they need to be punished accordingly. The law is more severe to those who use weapons. The use of a weapon is considered an aggravating factor, and a dog that has been abused, chained to a tree for life, beaten, starved and unsocialized should be considered an aggravating factor. Owners of these dogs need to be educated, but they also need to be punished accordingly. I am for the responsible dog owner, and not the banning of an innocent animal. My Am. Staff is the most loyal dog I have ever owned. She is very loving and affectionate, come on, her brother is an Old English Sheepdog! She has never bitten anyone or acted aggressively towards any kids, or anyone for that matter. On the other hand, she has also never been chained to a tree, beaten, mistreated, starved to death, stolen, or unsocialized with others. And one more thing, anyone who leaves their kids alone with ANY dog, needs to take a class in parenting. It all comes down to RESPONSIBILITY! Are there any responsible people left out there?
June 13th, 2005 at 10:43 am
Thanks for the comment, lauren. However, i don’t consider my comments unbiased 🙂