Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

[Scat]

Maybe so. At least they won't all be banned forever though. If you're a loser that trains your dog to be viscous, you'll either keep him away from people or pay the price if he hurts someone. And if you are a normal person who trains your dog to act like a normal dog, you should be fine.

So your still under the delusion that only dogs that are trained to be vicious attack?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Why does the fine go to the city? Shouldn't the "fine" go to the person/people attacked?
What about $500 plus any medical costs if there are any?

 

[LogGrad98]

Maybe so. At least they won't all be banned forever though. If you're a loser that trains your dog to be viscous, you'll either keep him away from people or pay the price if he hurts someone. And if you are a normal person who trains your dog to act like a normal dog, you should be fine.

I like it. My only concerns are $1000 might be a little steep, attack can mean a number of things (as you addressed), and also if the dog is provoked or justified should be taken into consideration.

Does this have to do with how your dog pees?

Didn't know you could train them to control the flow.

 

[LogGrad98]

So your still under the delusion that only dogs that are trained to be vicious attack?

It has been thoroughly proven that instinct and breeding are myths and fallacies. Every animal is, at heart, good-natured and happy, without an inkling of ever causing harm to humans, no matter what they do to each other. It is only under the direct influence and coercion of a human that any animal will lash out, least of all pitbulls. Teacup poms are far more deadly in the grand scheme of things. Pay attention.

 

[SaltyDawg]

So your still under the delusion that only dogs that are trained to be vicious attack?

I never said only dogs that are trained to be mean attack, but nice try.

 

[SaltyDawg]

It has been thoroughly proven that instinct and breeding are myths and fallacies. Every animal is, at heart, good-natured and happy, without an inkling of ever causing harm to humans, no matter what they do to each other. It is only under the direct influence and coercion of a human that any animal will lash out, least of all pitbulls. Teacup poms are far more deadly in the grand scheme of things. Pay attention.

I don't know about any of that. But I do know that if you have a dog, it is your responsibility as an owner to make sure your dog doesn't attack anyone.

If you aren't ready for that responsibility, you shouldn't own that dog. However, just because YOU aren't ready, doesn't mean I'M not ready. So YOU being irresponsible with YOUR dog should not mean I can't own whatever kind of dog I want.

 

[TroutBum]

So your still under the delusion that only dogs that are trained to be vicious attack?

*You're

I don't know about any of that. But I do know that if you have a dog, it is your responsibility as an owner to make sure your dog doesn't attack anyone.

If you aren't ready for that responsibility, you shouldn't own that dog. However, just because YOU aren't ready, doesn't mean I'M not ready. So YOU being irresponsible with YOUR dog should not mean I can't own whatever kind of dog I want.

This thread was fun to poke and point at Salty, but I think those jokes have run their course. 10x over. I agree with Salty, actually, and have had to ease up on my breed specific ban stance.

 

[bigb]

I personally like the idea of a steep price. I also agree with whoever it was that said the medical bills need to be accounted for. I also think the fines should increase with additional attacks. There should also be wording to protect the owner. If a dog is provoked and attacked, that's not necessarily the owners' fault.

 

[Bronco70]

So my question is, say a group of kids are playing around in one of their yards, one of the kids provokes the otherwise gentle family dog and it ends up biting the kid. The kids parents call the cops. Are the owners then cited and fined $1K? I don't live in Taylorsville, but my kids and their friends play in the back yard with the dog all the time, and it makes me wonder...

 

[freakazoid]

Bump.

So last night I was officially voted onto the Ordinance Review committee for Taylorsville and the subject of PB's was discussed at length. What are your thoughts on the following:

Taylorsville will not ban specific breeds.
The fine for your first infraction (attack) raised from $25.00 to $1,000.00, regardless of dog breed.

The idea is to punish the owner, and not the dog. IMO, this will clear a few things up. For starters, it will really only take one infraction for a "bad" owner to say, "Wow, I don't really want this dog anymore.", and "Good" owners to say, "Wow, my dog will NEVER escape my yard again." I believe it is win/win. Of course, I would still like to see all PB's destroyed, but that's just not the correct way to do things.

Thoughts/opinions?

Sounds pretty sensible. I'm curious as to how much of an influence you had in this?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Sounds pretty sensible. I'm curious as to how much of an influence you had in this?

If it's sensible, why would you be curious?

 

[TroutBum]

Sounds pretty sensible. I'm curious as to how much of an influence you had in this?

Officially? Not much. I've been to the last two months of meetings re: this topic and have given my thoughts, but before last Wednesday, I wasn't a member of the committee. Now that I'm official, I will have a more of a say, as it were, and I am fairly passionate about this topic. There are a bunch of people on the committee though, so it's not like what I think/say has much relevance. It all has to be agreed upon by everyone.

If it's sensible, why would you be curious?

If I could +10 you, I would.