Ban Pit Bulls??

I listen to the Philips Phile on 104.1 pretty regularly. And lately, the Phile has been on a rant about Pit Bulls. They contend that we, as a state or a county, should ban the animals because of their general viscious nature.

The 81 year old man who was attacked by a pair of pitt bulls last week died today. The article in the Sentinel is HERE.

I’m in full agreement with them on this, but I know a lot of people love the dogs. Speak up Orlando. Would you support a county-wide ban (with some compromise or grandfather clause for existing dogs)?? I know that some places like Ontario Cananda and Colorado have already banned the breed. San Francisco has tried banning them, but it didn’t pass. Would such a measure pass here?

5 Comments so far

  1. RisingSunofNihon (unregistered) on August 1st, 2006 @ 9:31 am

    I came across this site while I was doing some research online. Even though I don’t live in Orlando, I just wanted to say that I support any community’s efforts to ban pit bulls. There have been so many stories about people getting mauled by these dogs, that an all-out ban seems like the right thing to do.

  2. Chris (unregistered) on August 1st, 2006 @ 3:36 pm

    Wouldn’t support it personally. Don’t know if it would pass or not. Problem is, where do you stop? Should rottweilers be banned?

    The people training these strong breeds to be violent will either still do it illegally or change to a non-banned breed. I don’t think outlawing a breed is solving the problem.

  3. FryGuy (unregistered) on August 1st, 2006 @ 7:29 pm

    Don’t blame the gun, it’s the owner.

    Chris is correct. If that particular bully breed is banned, the owners will simply find another one to train to be violent. All dogs have the same potential to be mean, the only difference is that some of these bully breeds have the capacity to cause more damage. It’s assault rifle vs. Derringer, but the owner is who ulitmately pulls the trigger.

    An outright ban would just lead to illegal ownership and isn’t a practical solution. It’s on par with prohibition. Perhaps making ownership of said breeds more difficult, enact certain licenses to be obtained, perhaps registration for ownership in some sort of database.

    Banning them outright is taking the easy way out and will, in the end, backfire.

  4. Terry Howard (unregistered) on August 1st, 2006 @ 8:17 pm

    I agree, but I think something does need to be done, and it needs to be done to the dog owners. A high liability needs to be put on certain breeds, because those breeds need extra care and attention to make sure they are well adjusted. It is outrageous to me when I see some young kid who care barely hang on to his massive pit bull as it drags him into Petsmart. He very well may be a good dog and the owner responsible, but man, I think the penalty for owning a dog of certain breeds that ends up harming another person should be a lengthy jail term. It’s irresponsible to put others at harm and its not right for an animal to have to be put to death because you got in over your head with a dog that really needed a proper owner and not some assclown who wants to look tough. Some kind of penalty needs to be made that makes people really think about what they can truly handle.

  5. Cindy (unregistered) on August 4th, 2006 @ 5:10 pm

    I watch the DogWhisper and he said they are no bad dogs…just untrained dogs. I think it’s up to the owner to train the dog and just understand what the dog needs. Keeping them chained up in the yard isn’t helping their breed at all. I think everyone who owns a dog show watch that show and learn something. I did, and now my agressive Wolfie is being a much better behaved dog.

    BTW… Terriers are very agressive and their bite can be very bad… it’s not just big dogs that people need to take care of.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.