Pitbull Tests to Label them Dangerous or Not

[Lethalpits]

This is in regards to my post, http://www.game-dog.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18084.


Looks like people elsewhere had the same general idea. Yes, it is a form of BSL, but it is helping people. If the city were as strict on pits in Memphis as they are elsewhere, I would approve of this.



Published Sunday, December 17th, 2006
By Joe Chapman, Herald staff writer

Pit bulls face restrictions in the Tri-Cities, but more and more are getting
a pass for good behavior in Pasco.

Pasco and Kennewick have declared pit bulls potentially dangerous animals --
a status that requires their owners to carry expensive insurance and follow
strict guidelines for restraining the animals. Richland, meanwhile, is
considering a similar law.

But Pasco for the past 1 1/2 years has allowed pit bull owners to
demonstrate their pets' merit through a behavioral test.

Dogs that pass are released from the "potentially dangerous" distinction.
The dog can be reclassified as potentially dangerous later if it ever
commits certain threatening acts outlined in municipal code.




So far, Tri-City Animal Control has approved exemptions for about 100 pit
bulls that have passed the good-citizen test. Animal control administers the
test, which costs $20 by appointment, or $40 for a dog that has been
impounded.

One of the dogs to pass is Little Bit -- a 50-pound, 2 1/2-year-old pit bull
mix that took the test about a month ago. William Jackson, 64, has raised
her since she was 3 days old, and he brought her to Pasco with him when he
moved from California.

He didn't know about the requirements for owning a pit bull here, he said,
but when an animal control officer spotted Little Bit on a chain in the
front yard, the officer informed him.

Jackson, who considers the dog a member of the family, said he didn't mind
having her take the test.

"To me, it seems like a fair and reasonable thing, if you're going to have
responsibility for a dog that can be dangerous," Jackson said.

The test -- devised by the American Kennel Club -- checks the dog's
discipline in 10 areas (they are listed at WWW.akc.org/<WBR>events/cgc/ (http://www.akc.org/%3CWBR%3Eevents/cgc/)
training_testing.<WBR>cfm.) Criteria include sitting, staying and walking calmly
on a leash. The dog also has to control itself while passing through a crowd
interacting with other dogs and being approached by a friendly stranger.

About 70 percent of the dogs that take the test pass, said Bruce Young,
owner of Tri-City Animal Control. Only one dog that passed later was
reclassified as potentially dangerous because it slipped up, he said.

Dogs have to be genuinely well-behaved to pass, he said.

"We're certainly not going to pass one that's going to attack another dog
walking down the street," Young said.

Although the dogs have to prove they're cool customers, the owners may be
nervous wrecks during the tests.

"I was scared to death the whole time," said Kathy Roberts, 54, whose dog
Hannah took the test recently. Roberts and her husband live in Richland, but
they had their dog take the test because they plan to move into a smaller
house in Pasco in about two weeks, she said.

Hannah is a boxer-Labrador mix, but she would fall under Pasco's law for pit
bulls because she resembles the breed, Young said. Roberts, who described
her dog as submissive, said she feared the worst when Hannah was tested.

"What if she'd bitten somebody?" Roberts said. "That's not like her, but you
don't ever know."

If a pit bull fails the test or the owner chooses not to have the dog take
it, the owner still can keep the animal by getting a permit for a
potentially dangerous animal.

In Pasco, the permit costs $250, and the owners must secure insurance or a
bond for $250,000. The permit has to be renewed annually, whereas the test
is good for two years.

Pasco Councilman Matt Watkins said he likes the test option because it's for
the owners as much as for the dogs.

"With this exemption, we inconvenience the good dog owners much less with a
two-hour test than having to secure a bond that typically costs about $1,000
a year," Watkins said.

"It also sends a message to other owners that purchase these dogs for macho
interests -- that it's not acceptable."

In Kennewick, where potentially dangerous animal permits are available for
$25, the good-citizen test isn't an option for pit bull owners.

City Manager Bob Hammond said the ordinance has been on the books since the
1980s, and the test option has never come up.

Richland, however, is in the process of moving toward Pasco's position on
pit bulls. The city council on Tuesday will consider the second reading of
an ordinance that would classify pit bulls as potentially dangerous. It
would require their owners to pay $250 and get the insurance if their dogs
couldn't pass the good-citizen test.

"Everybody (on the council) thought that was a good idea," Richland City
Manager John Darrington said of the test option. "It's a means by which the
owner of a questionable animal, that had the pit bull breeding, could
demonstrate to
an independent party the animal would behave properly."

Royal City earlier this month went further than all three Tri-City
jurisdictions. The city council passed an outright ban on pit bulls and
Rottweilers that goes into effect early next month, with no test option
available.

http://www.tri-<WBR>cityherald.<WBR>com/tch/local/<WBR>story/8499736p-<WBR>8393050c.<WBR>html (http://www.tri-%3cwbr%3ecityherald.%3cwbr%3ecom/tch/local/%3CWBR%3Estory/8499736p-%3CWBR%3E8393050c.%3CWBR%3Ehtml)

[CrazyK9]

Umm, how does this help? Dogs that do or don't pass are still going to be able to harm people. I mean, how can the average person tell which dogs are potentially dangerous and ones that are good citizens? And what about dogs that aren't registered or in plain view... They wouldn't get tested so what difference does it make? Plus its stupid to have to pay $20 to take a damn test so people, who probably have no knowledge of the breed, can decide if your dog is "good."

If they are going to require pits to have their CGC title in order to be released from the potentially dangerous restrictions, then all breeds should have to do it. BSL is BSL is BSL... I don't support Bull Shit Legislation.

[DryCreek]

Nope, sorry, can't accept a test that requires our breed, and many other breeds wouldn't pass this part of the test as well mind you, to show NO animal aggression. Even the best of dogs can take a disliking to a strange animal. Unfair and unrealistic in my eyes. It will end up being the back door to the extermination of our breed. Soon it will be, if they don't pass, they die.

Stop the over regulation and put the responsibility back where it belongs, with the owner. Until owners act responsibly, our battle will not end.

[pennsooner]

My dog is CGC(Canine good Citizen)/TDI(Therapy dog international) and I'm still against this idea. Here is whats needed:

Very strong enforcement of things like leash laws and anti-stray laws. And strong penalties for anyone who's dog bites and harms a person (Jail time) one good idea is to automaticly spay/nuter any dog picked up as a stray. That, quicker than anything else will convince people to contain their dogs.

A lot of places don't want to pay for animal control so instead of doing so they pass breed restrictions.

A couple of questions. Why do you insist (or seem to) in trying to imply that Pitbulls are inherently dangerous? And why do you have what could be seen as an anti-social screen name like Lethalpits? I sure don't think of Pitbulldogs as lethal or even inherantly dangerous. Just seems wierd, like having " evil dogs of satan" as your handle.

[Unregistered]

I am having a real hard time with this. I will stay civil although I do not feel that way after reading this. $$$$$$$ ring a bell. Politicians and the gov loves $$$$$. If they can get more out of people they will any way possible and you seem to be supporting giving money away for a stupid reason. Hell i can give you a hundred good reasons you can give me money if giving money away is your thing. All the little punks you are trying to stop with this will just give this all the finger and have the dogs anyway fight them abuse them stupid test or not. and who is the judge at these test. no prejudice right, yea f****n right. Also you need to study the breed a little more, as this breed is know for animal aggression at times. A lot of good non human aggressive dogs that pose no threat would fail on this note. Costing honest hard working middle class folks a chunk of cash that could be used for a far better reason like feeding and clothing kids, high ass gas, rent, not lining the city or counsel members and their expert judges pockets to unjustly discriminate.... not bitching at you your suggested course of action needs to be re thought. I admire you in a way for trying to find a solution but this way is not going to work, like communism looks good on paper, but doesn't work in the real world. keep truckin with the ideas and getting feedback at a place like this is strongly advised as there are very experienced and knowledgable folks around here somewhere.

[ABK]

Here is whats needed:

Very strong enforcement of things like leash laws and anti-stray laws. And strong penalties for anyone who's dog bites and harms a person (Jail time) one good idea is to automaticly spay/nuter any dog picked up as a stray. That, quicker than anything else will convince people to contain their dogs.
I agree 100%!!!!! Good post!!

[getemcassius]

what local government should do is worry about at risk children not dogs

[Jake01]

This is an unfair test, another way for government to line its pockets with our hard earned money. It's BSL regardless of how you look at it and should not be supported in any way whatsoever. How is this positive press?

[Lethalpits]

My dog is CGC(Canine good Citizen)/TDI(Therapy dog international) and I'm still against this idea. Here is whats needed:

Very strong enforcement of things like leash laws and anti-stray laws. And strong penalties for anyone who's dog bites and harms a person (Jail time) one good idea is to automaticly spay/nuter any dog picked up as a stray. That, quicker than anything else will convince people to contain their dogs.

A lot of places don't want to pay for animal control so instead of doing so they pass breed restrictions.

A couple of questions. Why do you insist (or seem to) in trying to imply that Pitbulls are inherently dangerous? And why do you have what could be seen as an anti-social screen name like Lethalpits? I sure don't think of Pitbulldogs as lethal or even inherantly dangerous. Just seems wierd, like having " evil dogs of satan" as your handle.Pennsooner you apparently must not realize exactly how many DANGEROUS pitbulls are out there. There are several people in my neighborhood that I know that I can't step 20ft near their dog without getting barked and the dog nearly yanking itself off the chain. And theres nothing I can do about it. I for one do not like these type of pitbulls.
Therefore I support a dog test. BUT I think it should be for any dog that has a history of aggressiveness. Anything that fear bites as well.

If your pitbull is an uncontrollable beast, you do not deserve to have it because you are most definately not a well trained owner.

I have 4 pitbulls and I'm sure all of them would pass these tests if they had to.

Now, like I said I don't like the fact that is specifically made for pitbulls but it's better than having your dog taken away just because of what it is.

And as to the 'lethalpits' thing it's just a tag I use for everything. I operate a music production company under the tag "Lethal Productions" so I tag everything with it. Lethalceo@aol.com, lethalpits, lethalmuzik@myspace, etc.

Has nothing to do with my dogs or pitbulls in general.

YES, it IS BSL.. but this is in places where BSL is already strongly in affect. At LEAST they are trying to compromise. We all know damn well no matter how hard we plead and cry will they change their minds. Media rules over all.

There's just too many BS attacks by these 'pit' lookalikes that are killing us.

I don't know.. maybe it's different in other cities.

All I know is in Memphis there ARE a lot of dangerous pitbull/mix/line dogs around. There are lots of attacks that go unnanounced, and a lot announced. There are so many underground fighting rings around here it's not even funny. And these dogs get turned loose if they lose, not killed.

All pitbull in Memphis get sent to quarantine in the animal shelter and are killed 3 days later if no one responds to them. It's sad.

I lost my first male when he ran away a second time and I couldn't find him. I checked AS for four weeks, even though I know that either one of the three in my area could have found him and killed him 3 days later.

I believe if I had CGC test done on him they wouldn't have killed him so fast.

and you wonder why I feel this helpful.
And it really does need to involve all dogs with potential aggressiveness.

[Lethalpits]

BTW didn't mean to post this in 'positive' press, didn't realize that till someone showed me that. More like controversial press.

[Lethalpits]

Also ya'll, if you read all of it, you see that this doesn't just pertain to pitbulls.

It stated that in one county, a labrador/boxer mix had to take the test because it resembles what they consider a dangerous breed.


Also, in another city, it states that this is for pitbulls and rottweilers.

And another, it's available to dangerous animals/dogs but NOT pitbulls. Which is a BSL against this own form of BSL. Weird.


But ya, it's controversial. Good/Bad effect.

[BoogiemanBlood]

Also ya'll, if you read all of it, you see that this doesn't just pertain to pitbulls.

It stated that in one county, a labrador/boxer mix had to take the test because it resembles what they consider a dangerous breed.


Also, in another city, it states that this is for pitbulls and rottweilers.

And another, it's available to dangerous animals/dogs but NOT pitbulls. Which is a BSL against this own form of BSL. Weird.


But ya, it's controversial. Good/Bad effect.Okay look i'm not gonna go all wacko on ya but do you have a clue what you are trying to say? We are talking about the APBT here. Did you read the test outline for what passes and what fails? Anybody who has a true APBT and not some watered down version of one would have to be worried about the "interaction with other dogs" part. If what you have gets along with other dogs that's great. I have one of those myself. 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. This is just my opinion. Not meant to offend or make anyone mad. This test is as retarded as it gets.

[Lethalpits]

So your saying you can't take your 'game' dog aggressive dog for a walk in the park or down the street?? I own a game bred female, and two show male/females. My friend owns two strong game bred males.

We have no problems walking either dogs around other dogs.

Yea, they might bark a little or snarl quickly but with a jerk of the chain I can stop that. But they always stay alert in case I give the signal.

Now, you've got me assuming that your dog is one that will choke itself and bark repeatedly to attack if it sees any kind of dog in it's path?

Now, I don't know exactly how strict these tests are, but yea, I don't even think my dog would be allowed to walk through a crowd of dogs, thats crazy.

I dont think a jack russell terrier could without getting alert. But I could walk it around a room full, like the vet.

[Lethalpits]

WOAH. Man I apologize Boogie I didn't read that part clearly.

I read about the 15ft. but I don't think I can shake hands, and blah blah and have my dog turn around with me.

All of my dogs, if that close, would be barking until I can make it stop and trying to check out the dog.
ESPECIALLY if it is another pitbull for some reason. And the 'when the handler turns around, the dog cannot turn around as if to pull toward the other dog.'

Maybe, but I doubt it.

[BoogiemanBlood]

So your saying you can't take your 'game' dog aggressive dog for a walk in the park or down the street?? I own a game bred female, and two show male/females. My friend owns two strong game bred males.

We have no problems walking either dogs around other dogs.

Yea, they might bark a little or snarl quickly but with a jerk of the chain I can stop that. But they always stay alert in case I give the signal.

Now, you've got me assuming that your dog is one that will choke itself and bark repeatedly to attack if it sees any kind of dog in it's path?

Now, I don't know exactly how strict these tests are, but yea, I don't even think my dog would be allowed to walk through a crowd of dogs, thats crazy.

I dont think a jack russell terrier could without getting alert. But I could walk it around a room full, like the vet.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. :cool:

[purplepig]

I lost my first male when he ran away a second time and I couldn't find him..
I tried to stay out of this but...."I lost my first male when he ran away the SECOND TIME!!!

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? If you want to know what I think would be a good thing, it would be that WHENEVER a dog, of ANY breed is picked up, that they should Euth the dog IMEDIATELY!! Problem solved. Irresponsible owners would lose their dogs, less tax payers cash on keeping up with the dogs, and unwanted dogs would be a thing of the past! Before you jump, yes I have had a dog get loose before, and I still say that. I would hate to lose one of mine, but if it got loose, it would be my fault, and I would need to suffer the consequences! And if anyone reading this thinks that is too harsh, maybe you should look at your setup and tighten up!

[BoogiemanBlood]

I tried to stay out of this but...."I lost my first male when he ran away the SECOND TIME!!!

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? If you want to know what I think would be a good thing, it would be that WHENEVER a dog, of ANY breed is picked up, that they should Euth the dog IMEDIATELY!! Problem solved. Irresponsible owners would lose their dogs, less tax payers cash on keeping up with the dogs, and unwanted dogs would be a thing of the past! Before you jump, yes I have had a dog get loose before, and I still say that. I would hate to lose one of mine, but if it got loose, it would be my fault, and I would need to suffer the consequences! And if anyone reading this thinks that is too harsh, maybe you should look at your setup and tighten up!
excellent point about the "second time" and the security of the dogs.

[Jake01]

I tried to stay out of this but...."I lost my first male when he ran away the SECOND TIME!!!

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? If you want to know what I think would be a good thing, it would be that WHENEVER a dog, of ANY breed is picked up, that they should Euth the dog IMEDIATELY!! Problem solved. Irresponsible owners would lose their dogs, less tax payers cash on keeping up with the dogs, and unwanted dogs would be a thing of the past! Before you jump, yes I have had a dog get loose before, and I still say that. I would hate to lose one of mine, but if it got loose, it would be my fault, and I would need to suffer the consequences! And if anyone reading this thinks that is too harsh, maybe you should look at your setup and tighten up!
Very well put. How do you give rep points?

[Lethalpits]

Purple Pig, you are going to badger me about my first pitbull running away, out of nowhere? What the heck for?

My dog ran away the first time because we kept unchained in and out of the house and backyard. The first time, he managed to get over a 6ft somehow.

We found him, second time, I had him chained most of the time, but somehow this persistant dog, mostly when females were in heat around the neighborhood, the leather collar I had on him apparently was not designed to hold a pitbull. Then again, all in one night, he managed to get out.

THEN AGAIN I don't even know if he ran away or was stolen.

ON TOP of that this was when I was 17 and he was my first unregistered pitbull, or a mix since he wasn't registered.

Now, none of my dogs have ever run away. I learned my lesson.

But you want to bring it up because why?

And as far as keeping it legal where I live, I'm glad it's legal. I said this CGC is a reasonable idea for places where BSL owns them. If it where in Memphis this hard, there's nothing I can do about it except take the dang CGC.

And you had one run away too so what are you trying to get at? Yea, people who's dog's runaway is clearly their fault, but it happens. Even to you, oh guru of the almighty pit. Mine didn't make it back the second time. RIP Pancho. So in turn, yea **ANYONE ON THIS BOARD MAKE SURE YOUR DOGS ARE EITHER CHAINED, CONTAINED AND MOST DEFINATELY DON'T LET THEM RUN OUT THE FRONT DOOR IF THEY ARE IN THE HOUSE. EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT HAPPEN, WHICH WOULD MAKE YOU THE MOST IRRESONSIBLE OWNER AND YOUR DOG NEEDS TO BE EUTH'd.**

ALSO Boogie, I said I apologize, like I said I didn't read that part clearly and yea I understand where you are coming from. I would be worried with my APBTs now too because of the dog interaction part. Distance is okay but not where I have to meet and greet the owner and the other dog.

[Lethalpits]

So, in other words, you are telling me that...

If you happen to live in one of these cities/counties where this takes place. You would rather NOT take the test, pay the 250$ insurance thing, and whine about BSL the whole time even though clearly they are not going to change the law?

Or, just take the dang test.

Yea it sucks we have to go through things like this with our dogs, but hey, its here. Get use to it. I've chipped in for ADBA's BSL thing, another club here in TN and spoke my mind on a petition. But looks like we're getting nowhere.
This test thing is as close to help as I've seen. DUH it's BSL against pitbulls,
BUT for true owners in these cities, I'M SURE if you can't beat em, join em.
Heck, Penn Sooner said it himself, he has dogs that are CGC, he doesn't agree, but what else can he do??

[purplepig]

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

[bahamutt99]

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.

[BoogiemanBlood]

ALSO Boogie, I said I apologize, like I said I didn't read that part clearly and yea I understand where you are coming from. I would be worried with my APBTs now too because of the dog interaction part. Distance is okay but not where I have to meet and greet the owner and the other dog.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!

[pennsooner]

Pennsooner you apparently must not realize exactly how many DANGEROUS pitbulls are out there. There are several people in my neighborhood that I know that I can't step 20ft near their dog without getting barked and the dog nearly yanking itself off the chain. And theres nothing I can do about it. I for one do not like these type of pitbulls.
Therefore I support a dog test. BUT I think it should be for any dog that has a history of aggressiveness. Anything that fear bites as well.

If your pitbull is an uncontrollable beast, you do not deserve to have it because you are most definitely not a well trained owner.

I have 4 pitbulls and I'm sure all of them would pass these tests if they had to.

Now, like I said I don't like the fact that is specifically made for pitbulls but it's better than having your dog taken away just because of what it is.

And as to the 'lethalpits' thing it's just a tag I use for everything. I operate a music production company under the tag "Lethal Productions" so I tag everything with it. Lethalceo@aol.com, lethalpits, lethalmuzik@myspace, etc.

Has nothing to do with my dogs or pitbulls in general.

YES, it IS BSL.. but this is in places where BSL is already strongly in affect. At LEAST they are trying to compromise. We all know damn well no matter how hard we plead and cry will they change their minds. Media rules over all.

There's just too many BS attacks by these 'pit' lookalikes that are killing us.

I don't know.. maybe it's different in other cities.

All I know is in Memphis there ARE a lot of dangerous pitbull/mix/line dogs around. There are lots of attacks that go unannounced, and a lot announced. There are so many underground fighting rings around here it's not even funny. And these dogs get turned loose if they lose, not killed.

All pitbull in Memphis get sent to quarantine in the animal shelter and are killed 3 days later if no one responds to them. It's sad.

I lost my first male when he ran away a second time and I couldn't find him. I checked AS for four weeks, even though I know that either one of the three in my area could have found him and killed him 3 days later.

I believe if I had CGC test done on him they wouldn't have killed him so fast.

and you wonder why I feel this helpful.
And it really does need to involve all dogs with potential aggressiveness.







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.

[Lethalpits]

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

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?

[Lethalpits]

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.

[purplepig]

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.

[Attila]

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

[BoogiemanBlood]

....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....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.

[Lethalpits]

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?

[BoogiemanBlood]

"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

[Lethalpits]

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

[BoogiemanBlood]

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.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! ;)

[Lethalpits]

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

[BoogiemanBlood]

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 IMOhey 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!

[purplepig]

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?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!

[blackbeard]

Tests should be administered to prospective owners not the dogs.

[ABK]

Tests should be administered to prospective owners not the dogs.
Good post!!