Help. The stupid is finally in the state
I’m used to seeing hysteria and stupidity regarding breed bans but there usually in some far off land like California or Canada. That all changed today when it landed in my state. Brittney tells us that Pit Bulls have been banned in Nashville dog parks:
Citing safety concerns, the Metro Parks Board on Tuesday banned pit bulls from the city’s three off-the-leash dog parks. The new rule will be effective April 15.
The board passed the ban after hearing testimony from two Nashvillians who have had violent run-ins with the dogs in Metro Parks, including Lt. George Mitchell, who heads the Park Police and was bitten on the arm by a leashed pit bull in Centennial Park last September.
West Nashville resident Ellen Cox also urged approval of the ban, citing $211 in veterinarian expenses she faced after a pit bull attacked her dog at the Shelby Park facility.
The board voted unanimously to ban pit bulls and also “dogs having the characteristic of the pit bull breed,” though the ambiguity in the rule caused concern among board members James Lawson and Lamont Carter that breed owners could have grounds for a legal appeal if cited.
Yes, on the testimony of two people, the city banned dogs based on loosely defined criteria. Criteria so loose, expect trouble and a successful court challenge a la the Alabama Supreme Court decision on the issue. All dogs share well over 99% of their DNA with other dogs (wolves too) and there is, generally, no scientific way to tell breeds apart. So, if you happen to have a particularly bullish looking Boxer, you might get in trouble.
Facts are that all dogs are capable of violence. All dogs are natural killers, including little Fluffy-Wuffy in some 60 year-old cat-rancher’s purse. All dogs have a desire to have their place in the social order spelled out definitively and this leads to dog on dog violence. People seem to forget that they are animals or are just unwilling to accept the fact that little Fifi would dominate you in a minute if given the chance. This is evidenced by Brittney’s update:
One of our videojounalists (sic) went to a Nashville dog park to get some footage and interviews for his piece on this for tonight. While there he witnessed a dog fight. A male Chow attacked a mixed breed. There were no pit bulls at that park.
I don’t really have a lot more to say about it that I’ve not already said before. This week, it’s pit bulls and next week it will be German Shepherds. Remember, the single most telling factor in dog aggression (particularly fatal dog attacks) is the reproductive status of male dogs.
In fact, I’ve had my share of doggie violence lately but it was the result of the one that is politically correct and not the one that looks that certain way.
Additional thoughts: I have never been a fan of off leash parks or taking dogs anywhere off leash. It’s not that I don’t trust my dog, it’s that I don’t trust you or your dog. At these parks, they shouldn’t screen the dogs, they should screen the owners.
April 5th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
I’ll just note that in my personal experience, leash-off parks are where the especially irresponsible dog owners congregate, usually with their chocolate labs or german shepherds.
April 5th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Weird. I’ve had a different experience. Dog owners at parks I’ve been to have been especially concientious. Of course, I’m a first-time dog owner, so what do I know?
April 5th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
I actually wouldn’t have a problem with them banning unaltered male dogs, irrespective of breed, at off-leash dog parks.
I go to the Shelby Farms dog park almost weekly (it’s an important part of our socialization regimen), and have never had a problem with a Pit (which are quite common there). I have had some problems with irresponsible owners, but we learn to recognize and avoid them.
Interestingly, what few problems I have had were with labs and similar breeds. Again, though, this is an owner problem, not a breed problem.
April 5th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
At these parks, they shouldn’t screen the dogs, they should screen the owners.
Bingo.
The problem with problem “pit bulls” (and Rottweilers, and some other breeds) is how they are raised and how they are taught to be aggressive. You can usually tell the “problem” dogs by taking one look at the owners.
April 5th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Right now i am trying to trian my roomates min pin (Miniature Doberman Pinscher) to attack peoples nads on command.
April 6th, 2006 at 4:47 am
“… it’s that I don’t trust you or your dog.”
Yep.. exactly. “Moonbat” checkin’ in… Keep up the good fight, bro…
April 6th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Slow Day So Far
Stacey Campfield not only takes on E.D. in his blog posts, but fights back the anonymous coward trolls in his comments section and actually advocates the free-market system at least with regards to property rights! Go Campfield!
One of my goals beyond …
April 9th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
The point of view, that BSL (Breed Specific Legislation) is the way to fix the problem of dogfights in the metro parks, is wrong. The problem exists because of ignorant or irresponsible dog owners, not by any particular breed. And if you think that pit bull or pit bull type dogs are the only breed quick to engage in fighting than you are also wrong. There are numerous breeds that have a genetic disposition to aggression and bully breeds are not even on the top of that list. Many dogs in the hound group are ferocious dog fighters. And the working group of dogs has some of the most aggressive breeds of all.
When we support or ignore any BSL, we are doing our self and our dogs a great injustice.
When we say that pit bulls are dangerous, we are making a generalization. Pit-bull bans involve a category problem, too, because pit bulls, as it happens, aren’t a single breed. The name refers to dogs belonging to a number of related breeds, such as the American Staffordshire terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier, and the American pit bull terrier-all of which share a square and muscular body, a short snout, and a sleek, shorthaired coat. Thus the Metro ban prohibits not only these three breeds but also any “dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar” to theirs; the term of art is “pit bull-type” dogs. But what does that mean? Is a cross between an American pit bull terrier and a golden retriever a pit bull-type dog or a golden retriever-type dog? If thinking about muscular terriers as pit bulls is a generalization, then thinking about dangerous dogs as anything substantially similar to a pit bull is a generalization about a generalization. A pit-bull ban is a generalization about a generalization about a trait that is not, in fact, general. That’s a category problem.
The BSL in Metro parks is not treating the problem of dogs getting out of control of their handlers, but rather the symptom of peoples fears of a breed that they perceive as a big, nasty, scary dog breed that bites.
I am a professional Dog Trainer and while my own well-trained dogs have the pleasure of playing off-leash with other well-trained dogs, I don’t think much of off-leash areas in public dog parks. If we must have them, then the only way to assure the safety of the dogs and their handlers is to ban them according to their individual temperament and actions and not according to breed or breed type.
April 12th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
The Most Dangerous Breeds?
I’ll tell you the most dangerous breeds – write these down!
#1 All Time Dangerous Breed:
The #1 most dangerous breed are media outlets that deliberately breed fear, spreading myths and lies about dog breeds and canine behavior through irresponsible reporting and reinforcement of undeserved and negative breed stereotypes
What You Can Do About It:
· Call up the paper, the TV station or email the website and complain about the biased dog story
· Ask for the Editor, Sales Manager and/or Program Director
· Tell them you won’t read, watch or visit
· Tell them you won’t patronize their advertisers until they stop their biased coverage
· Tell them they have the opportunity to spread knowledge, not fear
· Tell them My Dog Votes!
#2 All Time Dangerous Breed:
The #2 most dangerous breeds are the local and state politicians that feed on the fear created by the irresponsible media, and the public’s ignorance.
They are greedy for the headlines, campaign dough and do the bidding of the private sector instead of truly advocating for the public health, safety and welfare.
They pass breed bans , weight or size restrictions, public space bans, and mandatory microchip laws, and other anti-dog legislation limiting the rights of responsible tax-paying citizens rather than deal with their criminal and social problems.
What You Can Do About It:
· Call or write the offending local of state elected official and complain about the breed ban or other anti-dog legislation
· Tell them you want the ban overturned in favor of breed-neutral legislation
· Tell them you want any other anti-dog legislation stopped or overturned
· Tell them you will vote them out in the next election
· Tell them you will vote out any politician that supported the ban
· Tell them you will rally every dog owner in town against them
· Tell them they have the opportunity to educate instead of legislate
· Tell them My Dog Votes!
#3 All Time Dangerous Breed:
The #3 most dangerous breeds are the apathetic dog owners who say nothing, or do nothing because they think they cannot affect change, or fight the sytem, or it doesn’t affect them directly. Or maybe they just don’t care – or won’t care – that is – until they come for their dog.
What You Can Do About It:
· Tell all of your friends, neighbors, relatives and associates, regardless of whether or not they own a dog about the breed ban or other anti-dog legislation
· Tell them they must support their fellow dog owners, friends, and neighbors
· Tell them if we don’t stand together now, we all fall
· Tell them they have the opportunity to unite the community, not divide the community
· Tell them to do it for their dog
· Tell them My Dog Votes!
Now get off your butts and go do it.