Pitbull Tests to Label them Dangerous or Not

Lethal, What I said wasnt meant to be badgering, what I said directly to you was this:
"Dude, you are looking for a way to increase safty of the neighborhood, keep owning bulldogs legal where you live, and the solution you come up with is 1. get a liscense, and 2. take the dog in for a test. How bout this. How 'bout you tighten up on the responsibility at your house. Quit letting your dogs run loose, and contain them properly? "
And I should have added, #3. then go and educate others around you to do the same!
The rest of it was what I consider a reasonable solution. I am against "Getting a liscense to own a bulldog", and I am against "taking a test to see if my dog is dangerous" for obvious reasons. My dogs would not pass the part about not being agressive towards other dogs, well not all of them anyway.

Why do you keep suggesting and showing agreement to BSL? Why? And why are you so offended when someone tries to show you something. ANd just how old are you? 17 1/2? You know, you should take a lesson from our dogs. (and you ask for this with the "oh guru of the almighty pit" comment). When a baby pup gets old enough, the pup is taken off the nipple, and put on solid food. They dont like it. It dont taste good, it dont feel good, going from that warm smooth milk to that hard crunchy food they fight it with all they can. BUT, a good responsible owner will make them change anyway, because they know that it is what will make the pup grow up, will give BETTER nourishment, and will help it to deal with life on life's terms. Well, if what I said earlier bothers you so bad, maybe you need to take the nipple out of your mouth, get off the bottle, and began to eat some solid food!! But it seems that when it is offered to you, you reject it.
"Because you have rejected knowledge, so I have rejected you."
WISDOM

 

Its better than a ban, so it would be a step up in places which already have BSL. But as something to have everywhere, I think not. Make it for all breeds, then I'll support it.

 

It's all good with me! I would never agree with this test and was just posting my point of my view. Never anything personal directed toward you. I'm not gonna participate in an attack on ya! (even though you're wrong) LOL Attacking each other does us no good here! I'm just glad I helped open your eyes to one of what I'm sure are many flaws of the test.

Like I said if it were just a test to see if humans could interact safely with my dogs I'm 500% sure they would all pass with flying colors, but people that come up with these things like these tests think it out a little more thoroughly than most of us give them credit for. They slip that part about interacting with dogs in to specifically put a target on certain breeds they know won't pass that section.

It's kinda like the house and senate passing a bill that has some bullshit little part attached that nobody really notices. Then you're stuck with it!

 

If someone wants a CGC type test as AN OUT to BSL, I'm all for that. I'm against any breed specific legislation where it doesnt already exist. Why cut your own throat? A word here about owning game-bred pits as house dogs that are going to be out in pubic. IF you can't train a dog to get a CGC, then that dog should not be a pet in your home unless you live out in the country and just never come into contact with other dogs. You can train all except the most firecracker hot dogs to get a CGC. But it takes time and it takes effort. It takes a lot of work on sit/stay WITH the distraction of other dogs walking by. And its tough for a Pitbull. But there are a fair number of decently hot dogs with even advanced obedience titles, it just takes time, and know how. I was lucky in that the person who helped me train was a great dog trainer and likes Pitbulls a lot.


Regarding dangerous dogs, perhaps some sort of non breed specific menacing law would be a good idea? Thats a tough one to write though. Its a big problem that a lot of (mostly) young men seem to like to try to intimidate others with their Pitbulls. There isn't much of a problem with that where I live but every single time I've seen aggressive, out of control Pitbull its some punk kid on the other end of the leash.


But keep in mind, BSL is a matter of POLITICAL POWER. If Pitbull owners are organized and politically active, you won't have BSL, it would be too costly politically then.

 

First, I'm 22. Second, I felt like you were calling me out on that one.
You could've just said 'hey, people who lose their dogs are irresonsible owners.' Instead of quoting me and calling me and my situation out publicly.

I learned from my own situation. There really was no point in bringing it up on me, other than to educate others on this board, with which could've been done without bringing up me.

Pig you know I'm open to your ideas but I DID feel called out for no reason on a situation that clearly someone would learn from on their own. Surely, if I lost my dog, you don't expect me to have the same setup for my others? If my dog dies from X food, do you expect me to continue feeding the others X food? From my side, I felt like you were trying to point out my own ignorance to show others here that my opinions and ideas are meaningless. If you would have stepped to differently, I wouldn't have stepped like I did.
But I do apologize as its just an argument.

Similar to how a pup refuses to eat from an owner that it trying to force food down its throat when it can clearly eat on its own, when the dog already knows how to eat, just needs the food.

and as far as supporting BSL, I already stated that if this were in effect in my area, I have no choice but to take the test. and like I said, if it were in your county, and you had to either pay $250 for insurance or take the test, would you take it? Yes or No?

 

and, I apologize again. I think I was more defending the dog that I lost because I don't believe he deserved to be euthd or whatever he is doing now. I just believe he needed to go to a different owner at least. I guess he didn't like being contained in any form or fashion.

 

Lethal, I can see where a person would get upset saying that their dog needed to be pts, we all take our dogs very personally. I was simply trying to drive the point home, because we are like that. And I did include myself in the equasion. All accidents are preventable, it all boils down to neglegence upon the owners part.

If I have something which I would consider stepping to you, as you put it, I would take it into pm's. I in know way meant to attack you(well, maybe about the nipple thing!LOL I am sorry), and honestly thought I was being gentle. I am sure you have read through some threads here and should see that you havent been handled in any way close to the way some others have been. That being said,

Would I take the test? Well, it just so happens that "I" live so far out into the sticks that we cannot get cable tv, and the hard telephone line sounds like a cell losing reception. So even if BSL were passed in town, it would not effect me. Also, I am such a private person that you pass by the house and never know that I have a yard full of bulldogs. I dont walk them down the road, only every once in a while will one be seen riding in the back of my truck. My homeowners insurance were gong to drop me because of the bulldogs, but I threatened to drop all of my insurance with them, and they backed off. Apparently the agent of the homeowners has the option to petition the underwriter of the claim, and insure them with "special circumstances". Even if I were in a town that had the choice of the insurance or the test, I WOULD NOT take the test, because I simply will not be a part of a statistic that adds to the bad reputation of this breed. In taking the test, every 2 years, the day would come that the dog would either be in one of them moods, or just simply would not like the other dog it is tested upon, and then in statistics, it would be another mark of a bulldog that was "dangerous". THen those statistics, when they reached the favor of the AR folks, would use them in court to ban the bulldogs altogether, "proving" that the majority of them are dangerous, when being dog agressive shows nothing about them being agressive towards people. The test is flawed.

I believe that you may be looking towards a solution, but it seems that you have given up the power of the people. If, right now, you begin to educate the ignorant, print up some facts, maybe Mia can send you some, I believe she said she has a data base, pass them out, make yourself a breed advocate by being a 100% responsible person, go to the ones who are being reckless, and educate them, maybe, MAYBE you would be prepared for the fight when it comes to your town. It seems that your mentality is that you are already defeated in this. Hey, if 1.2% of the population in America(homosexual) can get laws passed in Mass. to get MARRIED, how much more should you be able to fight bsl in your city? They want you to have a defeated attitude, but you have the CHOICE, and what the mind can concieve and believe, the person can achieve.

 

This is how I see it. If one dog has to take a test then all dogs have too. Even the fluffy ones.

 

Well I've made that point on page 2......... "My true gamebred dogs would fail this test eventually though as it has to be taken every 2 years. Sooner or later you keep putting strange dogs together with them and they will show some aggression"

...........sometimes people just cant see past their nose and no matter how much you talk they just won't listen.

Then in my next post I said........"No my dogs aren't crazed wild animals at all. In my original post I said " My true gamebred dogs would fail this test eventually though as it has to be taken every 2 years. Sooner or later you keep putting strange dogs together with them and they will show some aggression" With that said though we all know that one wrong snif or snarl from another dog could cause a reaction that very well could be considered as dog aggressive. My dogs don't attack any dogs they see but come on, they are gamebred APBT's. Dog aggression has been bred into them for centuries. The probablility of these type of APBT's failing this test is way too high for this test to be considered anything but BSL in a different form. If the test stuck to just human interaction none of us with purebred pits would have anything to worry about"

I don't know how much talking it takes to drive the point home.

 

First, no hard feelins Pig. I know how it gets on this board sometimes. Hey, we're pit owners, we all bite and growl =p


"In taking the test, every 2 years, the day would come that the dog would either be in one of them moods, or just simply would not like the other dog it is tested upon, and then in statistics, it would be another mark of a bulldog that was "dangerous". THen those statistics, when they reached the favor of the AR folks, would use them in court to ban the bulldogs altogether, "proving" that the majority of them are dangerous, when being dog agressive shows nothing about them being agressive towards people. The test is flawed. "--


Okay, good point. IMO then where these tests are being taken people need to try to get it approved that the 'dog interaction' part is a little to strict. There are ALOT of dogs where you simply cannot get that close with them. Heck I had a husky that wouldn't let me talk and greet with another dog walker that close. And yes, the more 'dangerous' pitbulls they have on paper will effect us.





"I believe that you may be looking towards a solution, but it seems that you have given up the power of the people. If, right now, you begin to educate the ignorant, print up some facts, maybe Mia can send you some, I believe she said she has a data base, pass them out, make yourself a breed advocate by being a 100% responsible person, go to the ones who are being reckless, and educate them, maybe, MAYBE you would be prepared for the fight when it comes to your town. It seems that your mentality is that you are already defeated in this. Hey, if 1.2% of the population in America(homosexual) can get laws passed in Mass. to get MARRIED, how much more should you be able to fight bsl in your city? They want you to have a defeated attitude, but you have the CHOICE, and what the mind can concieve and believe, the person can achieve."

Your right.. I have a little bit given up hope on the fight. But it's only because I haven't seen any good outcomes. No bans lifted, etc. This CGC test was the only thing I saw close as a compromise. But really, it's more like facade. Give us something we think is reasonable, but in the end will help their agenda.

But seeing as how you live in the sticks, Pig, you got to look at it from a neighborhood/city person's part. If I lived in a part of town with that test, it's 50/50. It does cut out thugs with dogs, fighters and irresonsible owners. But it hurts the true owners of game dogs and eventually it will be used against us in the end.

Maybe I am falling into their trap with this 'test' as a compromise for us.

Also, Boogie, are you talking to me or just people in general?

 

uh a little of both. i mean i respect the right of any person to have their opinion it's just that mine is obviously not the same as yours is. i just think this test is a bad bad bad bad bad bad bad idea. i've already stated my reasons why. i guess i was just living in the fantasy land that would change your mind and see it my way :p

btw did i say that test is a bad idea? LOL

 

Ya man.. Chows are mean as hell. So are the little pomeranians I bet you cant take those things near another dog and meet the owner.


Sounds like I'm flippin the script here. I WAS for this test, but the dog interaction part is too strict. They need to make this open for all dog owners, and loosen up the interaction part. Also, it doesn't need to be mandatory and I don't know about the $250 insurance thats nuts.

If they want to do a pitbull/rottweiler/anything similar test, they need to just keep it human interaction. Isn't this what the media focuses on?

 

see that should show you OBVIOUSLY that the test is flawed. you just made one of the points some people have been trying to convince you of!

 

Yea but I already told you earlier I agreed with you that the dog interaction thing is bad =p

Yea, the test as a whole IS bad, because its against our breed. and the fact that people out there have to go through crap like this. But I was just saying it is kind of a step forward, but its also a step back. I'm still 50/50 on the situation, IF WITHOUT the dog interaction. Thats too much IMO

 

hey i think your heart's in the right place as far as trying to save our dogs but don't let these kinds of crappy ideas put blinders on you thinking it's the answer. we're not married to the govt. we don't have to compromise everytime there's a fight...LOL the answer is for them to leave our dogs alone and crack down on people they do catch being irresponsible with them. stand up and fight!

 

Good, no wasted time then!! That's most excellent!

BTW, there is much hope. You just dont here much about it. There have been places where BSL has been declared unconstitutional, and that sets up precedence(sp?) for future court cases. find the cities and cases that this has happened, and who was pushing it , and contact them. I am sure they would help you anyway they can. follow the same thing as conservatives have w/ the gay marriage. Before the opportunity came for the gay rights to push for gay marriage, conservatives have pushed for a law staing that marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. I believe most cities and municipalities have laws set up for vicious dogs, and if they were inforced things would be better off. Push for owner responsibility. Do not push for more liscenses, tests, and so forth that the city gets to tax us more, in a sense. but they should inforce the laws on the books instead of making new ones. Heck, sue the city for NOT enforcing the laws. Turn it on them instead of on the dogs. Like I said, I am for a quick kill shelter. then again I am also for a quick kill jail house too. I dont think it fair for a law abiding citizen to have to support a criminal. and that's what happens when we house them with air conditioning, tv's, hot showers, warm meals, and the ability to sue those who imprison them. Back in the day a person stole a horse, they were hung in public. Now you can go and rape a 3 year old baby and do 1 1/2 yrs of time. It just ain right. There are many ways to go about it, and we should all remember this,
in the constitution it states that when the government quits serving its purpose which is for the people, and begins to use its power for its own ends, then the people have the duty to overthrow such government and start a new one. Seems we, and the government have forgotton about that part. So if that is our duty, we must all be traitors!

 

Tests should be administered to prospective owners not the dogs.

 

Good post!!