Pit bulls maul a defenseless dog to death

[Aggrophobic]

nope, i think you should have to go through that kind of process to own anything dangerous.

and to have kids.

Hmm... Ok then, I can agree with you on that.

[Varitok]

That's why it's good to have guns.

Yeah, The other owner should have had a gun and you could have had a nice little shoot out.

[Wildtree]

It does more than that. The tax part is true. But that money helps to fund the dog warden services. The tag also helps to get the dog back to it's owner if they are caught by the dog warden. If you are attacked by a unlicensed dog, the owner can receive extra punishment for having a unlicensed dog. But like I said, it is one of those "enforce when caught" type laws.

I'm not against the license per say. It to me just does not do enough. I'd raise the tax more appropriately to some $15.00 a month. Untreated ones $25.00 a month.
The part that gets the dog back to the owner btw. is the chip you get them implanted, which you get done by the vet. It's not part of the license procedure.

- - - Updated - - -

lol! I agree. They are mean little suckers from my experience. But I do not fear them or feel a need to carry my firearm around one. I would be in more of a defense mode around certain breeds than others. But that would not be limited to just Pits.

agreeable reasoning.

[Halyon]

You could turn a chiuaua into a "monster" if you treated it poorly. Sadly, thats not at all unommon these days. People treat thoes as toys.

I agree, I own one. There's a limit to how much damage a little thing like him could cause compared to a pit though. I despise the people who raise it like it was a child, and it turns into a little tyrant, those people should be educated. But they are a minority compared to good owners. There's a fair few other people with chi's around here, they're all pretty chill and well-mannered. Out of those, mine is the worst...because he barks at other dogs. It's a shame too, they're smart dogs...

Most common breeds are easy to keep, even for newbies, just requires the want to own them, no license needed. More 'high-profile' dogs should require some sort of formal license to have though, as raising those aren't just a walk in the park always, and they can cause some damage. Arguably, all muscle-dogs with a history of being favored by fighting rings and such, should be prioritized.

[Twix]

Only we do... These breeds were bred for dog fighting.

I am not talking about a modern day breeder... I am talking about over dozens if not hundreds of generations for centuries they were bred specifically to kill other dogs in fights.

Yes, ban all breeds that have a high risk to injure others. There are plenty of other breeds to choose from.

[Deleted]

No, they are just dogs.

They are dogs with a vastly increased risk of harming other dogs and people in general. I'm not saying they are all dangerous, but it's completely ignorant to say they aren't dangerous.

[Deleted]

Yes, ban all breeds that have a high risk to injure others. There are plenty of other breeds to choose from.

If the risk is high enough, why not? Why should other people be at risk because you can't choose from 500 other dog breeds?

[jellmoo]

Only we do... These breeds were bred for dog fighting.

I am not talking about a modern day breeder... I am talking about over dozens if not hundreds of generations for centuries they were bred specifically to kill other dogs in fights.

But that's just it. We don't even know what breed of dog they are, or even if they're the same breed. It has "pitbull characteristics" but so do a lot of other dog breeds. So do mutts that don't have an ounce of bully breed in them.

And even if they are full on bully breed, aggression can and has been bred out. Responsible breeders can and have bred the trait of excessive aggression out of their lines.

[Strawberry]

It's not always the owners fault. The owner in question seem like an asshole, but some dogs are bred to be more aggressive.

I have two mixed dogs, rottweiler/doberman and rottweiler/doberman/rhodesian ridgeback. They are huge especially the second one which is between 60-70kg heavy. When they see another dog they run to say hi but never ever have attacked another animal, however they do scare the shit out of smaller dogs. They also LOVE to chase cats and wild rabbits (who always run away as they are much faster than those huge dogs).
But god forbid someone unknown try to enter the apartment. I haven't ever seen them try to go for a bite even when the person they barked at walked just past them, but they refuse to stop barking.
I doubt that they will ever attack anyone as they have lived in the same appartment with a cat and even my 5 year old nephew who regullary plays and even rides them

Rottweilers are bred to be guard dogs, that's why they don't become aggressive unless provoked at their territory. But putbulls are attack dogs, it's in their blood to attack.

[Halyon]

Honestly I am pretty on board with what California is doing in outlawing the sale of dogs that aren't from shelters/adoption. We have enough homeless and fucked up dogs, we really don't need to keep breeding them for a while.

Well, homeless/shelter dogs also come from abusive homes, or homes that for whatever reason just can't have them anymore, or puppymills if they're healthy enough...either way, they were bred from somehwere. Shelter animals also have their problems, or worse, unknown history. I agree with you that adopting a dog (or cat) is the best moral decision, but I cannot blame someone for wanting a dog with a pedigree, if that's what they want. These things aren't guaranteed from a shelter... Even more so if you want an animal that can be used for breeding (responsibly).

[Deleted]

Dogs should be put down and the owner should be thrown into jail for a few years.

Pit bulls do not behave like this unless you teach them, and it's time owners who train their dogs like that, should be seen as a danger to society.

[Aggrophobic]

They are dogs with a vastly increased risk of harming other dogs and people in general. I'm not saying they are all dangerous, but it's completely ignorant to say they aren't dangerous.

Nope they don't and no it's not.
I'm sure you can find why both in this post and all over the internet. Go educate yourself in the matter befor you toss out bullshit such as this.

[Twix]

I can tell you don't actually own a dog, so of course you don't put much thought into things that won't actually affect you.

I actually own a pomeranian.

[Wildtree]

Dogs aren't required to be chipped, so the license also gives your information to the city animal control for if your dog is ever brought there.

If the dog doesn't wear the tag, it's no way of telling whom he belongs to.
That's kinda the point. While it's required by the laws (by most) to have the tag at the dog when you are out and about with the pooch, it's primary reason is literally to show how you've paid your animal tax.
But say, if you're a crook and you steal the animal for monetary gain, you'd remove the tag.

[Wildtree]

So what I said is accurate, you're a cat owner.

roflmao.. that was mean

[Deleted]

Nope they don't and no it's not.
I'm sure you can find why both in this post and all over the internet. Go educate yourself in the matter befor you toss out bullshit such as this.

Yes, people have been banning them for the lulz of it for years now. I'm not advocating banning any dogs myself...I just think not just anyone should be allowed to have them and special training should be issues in case their dog is a monster

[Twix]

So what I said is accurate, you're a cat owner.

I am a responsible dog owner who didn't choose a dangerous breed who could potentially injure others since it was developed for fighting.

[Deleted]

Pitbulls were developed as fighting dogs.. they are a dangerous breed and should be banned.

Bogus. Labradors are more dangerous than pitbulls by nature.

I've seen many pitbulls over the course of my life, and guess what... they never ever attacked a kid or another animal, because guess what? The owners really took great care of their dogs and so on. A dog in general always copies the behavior of it's owner, if you're anxious, so will your dog be, if you're playful, so will your dog be, if you're a piece of shit, so will your dog be.

[Halyon]

If the risk is high enough, why not? Why should other people be at risk because you can't choose from 500 other dog breeds?

The risk isn't high enough outside very few select breeds. The major problem in the equation is the human. Human raises dog poorly, no matter the breed? Problem dog that can attack something. ALL dogs can attack people and other dogs, and they do. But we don't hear about them, until it's a 'pitbull' (said like that because not all of them are actual pits, they just look like they are...that's a little dog racist), because people love to fearmonger when it's 'them'.

A dog that is legit dangerous to own is something like a Tosa Inu. They're STILL being bred to fight to this day, in select circles. Seen some of the conditions they're being raised in, and they're trained to draw blood from the time that they're small puppies. And they are guard dogs. They're dangerous to people.

[gushDH]

For anyone saying that it's the owner's fault, it is also that there are dogs like pitbulls which are allowed to be owned by anyone.

It's the exact same thing as being able to own a gun. Yes, someone can use to for all the good reasons, but there will be people who use it for bad reasons.

Same goes with pitbulls, they are incredibly strong dogs, with exceptionally strong bite. Sure, most people will just have them sleep, eat and play, but there will be people who treat them bad, hit them, and make them aggressive. And that's how you get to that point.

And this is the reason why strong dogs shouldn't be allowed to be owned by ordinary people who just want a pet to cuddle with.