Sen. Tim Burchett advocates breed specific legislation
State Sen. Tim Burchett wants to enact breed specific legislation mandating that pit bulls be spayed or neutered. The senator was also on the talk radio this morning saying that such programs in California have been successful. Unfortunately, such programs don’t exist in California as state law there prohibits breed specific legislation. It’s one area that Cali actually does correctly.
And breed specific laws are generally pointless for a variety of reasons, including:
Some breeds are hard to identify (pit bulls, for instance, refers to a class of dog and not a specific breed)
If a breed is regulated, people will just switch breeds
Pit bulls have a temperament rating similar to a Golden Retriever.
The factors that contribute to dog attacks occur irrespective of breed (see here and here). Those factors are, generally, the reproductive status of the animal (at least Burchett gets that part right); an animal that is not properly restrained; chained animals become defensive; and unsupervised pets and kids.
Update: Turns out, Cali does allow for spaying/neutering based on breed. I forgot about that. Cali still prohibits bans based on breeds, though.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Also, the owner. How have they treated their pet? Has their pet been trained? Socialized? Given daily attention?
Breed specific legislation starts with pits and then it goes on to several other large breeds, including German Shepherds. May we never become a nation of sweater-wearing purse dogs.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
The site says that pass/fail is weighted based on the training and breed of the dog. A shutzhund that lunged at someone would pass while a husky that did would fail.
It might simply mean that the passing behavior for a pit bull is closer to the norm for a pit bull than the passing behavior for a sausage dog is to the normal behavior of a schnauzer.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
[…] Say Uncle explains how useless laws are, like one proposed by Sen. Tim Burchett, that seek to ban or regulate specific dangerous dog breeds: Some breeds are hard to identify (pit bulls, for instance, refers to a class of dog and not a specific breed) […]
November 15th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Any politico who enacts legislation like this needs to be be spayed or neutered.
With all the REAL problems we have, like open borders and a invasion of illegals, I cant believe that our piss poor excuses for national leaders are wasting time with crap like this!
November 15th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
He hates a certain breed….just because they ARE that breed? What’s that make him? A doggist? A Breedist? A Canineist?
First they came for the pit bulls, but I didn’t speak up because I was a pomeranian.
November 15th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
I’m sorry, but pit bulls do not have the temperament of Golden Retrievers. About once a week, you read about a person being severely mauled by a pit bull. You don’t read about people being severely mauled by Golden Retrievers. This is a breed that is kept by drug dealers and others with a ghetto mentality. I’m sick and tired of reading about kids and elderly people being shredded by these malevolent dogs. They have been bred as fighting dogs and they simply have a genetic predisposition for aggressiveness, and it’s the absolute height of human stupidity to ignore or rationalize all of these news articles about pit bull attacks. I’m also sick of hearing people talk about how “gentle” or “how good with kids” their pit bulls are, and the next thing you know their dog has been involved in a savage, unprovoked attack. Come on, people! We simply cannot defend things like pit bulls and still retain a fiber of credibility! This breed needs to join the dinosaurs–it needs to be extinct. Pit bull attacks are real, and they are all too frequent–and every single owner of those pit bulls involved in mauling or killing a human being acts surprised by their dog’s actions! Enough!
November 15th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
‘This is a breed that is kept by drug dealers and others with a ghetto mentality.’
And if they kept golden retrievers, what do you think would happen?
‘They have been bred as fighting dogs and they simply have a genetic predisposition for aggressiveness’
Yes. aggression to other dogs. they are not predisposed to aggression toward humans as that trait was bred out of them.
“This breed needs to join the dinosaurs–it needs to be extinct. Pit bull attacks are real, and they are all too frequent–and every single owner of those pit bulls involved in mauling or killing a human being acts surprised by their dog’s actions! Enough!”
Now you’re just being an idiot.
November 15th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
“This breed needs to join the dinosaurs–it needs to be extinct. Pit bull attacks are real, and they are all too frequent–and every single owner of those pit bulls involved in mauling or killing a human being acts surprised by their dog’s actions! Enough!”
Are you that vehement about violent criminals? That’s a breed that should join the dinosaurs.
BTW, dog attacks aint that frequent, I cant remember the last time I heard about one. I cant say the same about attacks from violent criminals with long records.
November 16th, 2007 at 6:03 am
well said, chev jim. it has been awhile since I heard of a golden retriever mauling.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
PROTECT YOUR NEIGHBOR
Hello fellow American. I will keep this short. The American Pit Bull Terrier is a proud part of American history. Remember “Our Gang”? Spanky and friends had a dog named Pete. He was an APBT. They represent everything that is is to be American. This is “to be smart, strong and family orientated”. Please do not let the actions of a few punish the many. I spoke with a man who delivered a Fed Ex package to me. He liked my dog (although she looks intimidating as well as friendly). With 30 years of delivering packages for Fed Ex he had NEVER come across a vicious APBT.
Do some cold calling and surveys of delivery people. See what kind of experiences they have had with the APBT.
PUNISH THE DEED, NOT THE BREED
Just as Hitler came for those who could not stick up for themselves, BSL is trying to eradicate (as well as take away rights never to be brought back – rights Americans and theirs dogs fought and died for) an entire species.
Please vistit The Connecticut Military Department web site at http://www.ct.gov/mil/site/. There you will find an article to read about Stuby the war dog. It is under “History and Adventure”.
May god forgive us for the attempt to kill off a species (1,000 killed off in Colorado with a 1 year jail term for dog owners). To limit one APBT per family is like China limiting people to one child. A limit like this WILL create puppy mills. This breed loves to play. To watch two American Pit Bull Terriers at play is pure joy (especially a momma and her pup). This is a property right issue. If property rights continue to be limited, owners are forced to leave and seek a new life else where.
Remember, the rights that are “THE MOST IMPORTANT TO PROTECT, ARE THE RIGHTS YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN“. Sincerely, Another American under constant attack
November 16th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
I know there are “some” pit bulls that may have a fairly gentle disposition. The fact is, however, that as a breed, they are disposed toward aggression. That’s why they’re used as fighting dogs, instead of Golden Retrievers. We have had tragedy piled on top of tragedy because of pit bull attacks. There is just no reason to own such a breed. Why pick a pit bull over a Golden Retriever or a Lab? Again, it’s that “ghetto” mentality. Somebody wants to look important, somebody wants a status symbol. And these people who want whatever status owning a pit bull confers prove, time and again, that they cannot keep these animals under control. Time and again, we read about pit bulls attacks when these dogs get loose and attack a child or elderly person. And I’ve seen dogs that turn on their owners, and I’ve yet to see a Golden Retriever do that. You can call me an idiot, but I think the idiot is someone who refuses to acknowledge the overwhelming body of evidence that pit bulls are unsuitable as pets. Yes, everybody claims that his or her pit bull is gentle and controllable. And when the attacks occur, they profess complete surprise and disbelief. If you own a pit bull, you are in a state of denial. You need to reexamine your reasons for wanting to have a dog of this breed. Yes, maybe you’re one of the fortunate ones whose pit bull will never attack. But do you have a right to inflict your bad judgment on all of your neighbors? And what are you going to say to the parents of a child that your dog mauls? Or to the son or daughter of an elderly person your dog kills? Will it have been worth it? You can control your gun, but a pit bull has a mind of its own. And you can never be sure what that pit bull is going to do. Bottom line: it’s just not worth it to take such a terrible chance on this breed.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:20 am
One question Chev. If so called “pit bulls” were outlawed what’s the next breed you haters of big dogs will go after? I guarentee someone will start a campaign to outlaw another breed. And after that another…
November 17th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
on this site, its politically correct to say pit bulls are not dangerous, regardless of what my personal experience shows me to be true. fuck that. they should put a bounty on each and every one of them.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
you can say whatever you like. just don’t expect people to not think you’re an idiot.
November 18th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Chev Jim,
Replace “pit bull” with “assault weapon” in your above screed and see if it still makes sense.
Are you basing your position on extensive research into dog breeding or just on the media hype surrounding dog attacks? Are you taking a reporter’s word that an attach was carried out by a pit bull or verifying it yourself?
We constantly see the media falsely reporting about weapons – what makes you think they’re any better and picking out dog breeds? I’ve seen stories that start out blaming an AK-47 in an attack and it turns out it’s a .45ACP pistol. Remember the NYU .50 caliber guy? The media was running pictures of an Armalite .50BMG with the story at first. Does the phrase “semi-automatic Glock revolver” sound familiar? How many times have we heard “an SKS assault rifle” from these nimrods?
The media calls any dog involved in an attack a pit bull so long as it has somewhat floppy ears on it and a snout that doesn’t look like a German Shepherd’s.
Tell you what: take the test. Find the pit bull.
Actually, I got my lab/pit mix because he was at the bottom of the list at the local county shelter. As soon as the next dog came in he was getting the Tookie Williams treatment.
And hell, I’m still not sure he’s got any American Pit Bull Terrier or Staffordshire American Terrier in him. His ears perk up a bit more than a lab’s, he’s a bit more burly in the front, lean in the back, and his snout is a bit shorter, but other than that he’s just a black lab with webbed feet.
November 18th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Folks, you don’t have to be a statistician or expert on dogs to know that pit bulls are involved in the vast majority of fatal dog attacks. These dogs “stand out” from other breeds. And when victims, witnesses and the police say it was a pit bull attack, that’s pretty convincing for me. This is not the same as the assault rifle or handgun ban argument. YOU control your guns, and they don’t have a mind of their own. Not so with a pit bull. That dog has a mind of its own, and the pit bull’s brain is “hardwired” by years of selecting breeding to produce an aggressive breed that has the strength in its jaws to maim and kill. I don’t have a problem with Great Danes, and they’re a LOT bigger than a pit bull. But Great Danes are notably gentle, because they weren’t bred to be super-aggressive, like pit bulls are. Now, I’ve got two dogs, a Golden Retriever and a terrier-mix “mongrel.” Both are very good-natured, gentle dogs. Their “home defense” function is to simply bark their asses off at any intrusion attempt, warning me and giving me time to reach a gun. Now, you might consider an “attack dog” to be a plus in your defense setup, UNTIL it attacks someone without justification and you have a lawsuit on your hands, and perhaps criminal charges, as well. Do you really want a dog with a “hair-trigger” temperament around your children, spouse and friends? And you know what? I’ve never heard a pit bull owner say these words after an attack, “Yeah, he was pretty aggressive, all right, and he’s attacked other people, but I figured what the hell, he was protecting me!” No, what they say is THIS: “Oh, gosh, I just never thought my pit bull could attack and kill a three-year-old child! Why, he’s always been so gentle with children. I just don’t know what came over him!” Well, I’m of the denials and I’m sick of the attacks, and if we don’t outlaw the breed, we should impose “strict liability” on the owners of pit bulls, just like we do on people who use explosives. Under this doctrine, pit bull owners would be held strictly liable for any their dog’s maiming or killing of an innocent person–no excuses accepted. The owner would be trundled off to jail, his assets would be seized, and the dog would be euthanized. I don’t have anything against dogs, or even against big dogs per se, but you just cannot say that pit bulls are not a problem unless you have your head buried in the sand.
November 20th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Indeed you don’t, because if you were a statistician or expert on dogs you’d know that this claim was a big, steaming pile of dog shit. And yes, Chevy, Golden Retriever shit smells just as bad as pit bull shit.