Breeding question / debate

Thought this would be interesting. I am not interested in hearing if this is right or wrong. We all know obviouskly it IS wrong but:

Do you think BSL actually FUELS more dogs being bred rather than "curbing" certain breeds?

Here is why I ask. I work in a petstore and I always have to go talk to people who come in with pit bulls. Also I call the ads in the papers regularly and ask questions just to see what they say. ANYWAYS more than once I have heard from the person that they HAD to breed a litter in order to be able to pay the insurance to keep thier dog. I live in Ohio you know the law is retarded here. SO do you think that part of the breeding epidemic is because people want to keep thier dog and its the only way they can afford the insurance? There are two places that will issue it and you have to pay 1 full year upfront non refundable and whole premium must be paid they dont do monthly like a car insurance. Also since they are the only two places you can imagine the price. They rape people with the price and unless you make good money you cant afford it. So basically if you make minimum wage kiss your dog goodbye because you wont be able to afford the insurance. The only way I can afford it is because I have extra money taken out of my check each week. So that check I get at the end of the year plus my income tax goes to renew every year. Its rediculous how much it is.

 

I am not sure about the insurance issue because that is not a factor in my neck of the woods, but I do think that BSL fuels more dogs being bred. At its most basic level it adds to the "tough guy" persona of owning certain breeds, and in effect, leads to over population. People belive that if a specific breed is outlawed, they are then tough by owning, raising, breeding that breed.

 

I don't know. I know that if I suddenly had to pay for pricey insurance, breeding my dog to fund it would not be an idea that would come to me. I would be working harder, or cutting back on niceties if I couldn't afford it. Can't afford insurance for one dog = breed more? My brain just doesn't work like that, I guess. If you consider it, though, a lot of people think that paying the price for a purebred dog means they have to breed to make their "investment" back.

I suppose on some levels BSL may contribute to the breeding glut. Because then people will want to breed just to supply the demand for contraband dogs. Who knows.

 

wow 59 views and only 2 people have an opinion on this?

 

I dont think 1/2 the puppy peddlers have any idea what BSL is. Its all about money. People breed the dogs to make money. The flea markets here are over run with backyard bred pit bulls. Booths and booths of em. Its like a cur farm. And I promise you NOT ONE of those old dirty sob's have any idea what the hell BSL is. Its not really a factor for them. They sell the dogs for 150 bux a pop and theyre out the door. Its sickening really...

 

People are gonna breed for money regardless. Insurance could be used as an excuse towards BSL, but if you use that for an excuse then obviously it's either crossed your mind to do it for the money or you already are. These dogs will remain overbred and I don't see the population decreasing anytime soon because this breed is a goldmine, hell the name alone sells anything amongst people interested in the breed or it's relatives.

 

For one I NEVER once said it was an excuse for BSL. And to say "but if you use that for an excuse then obviously it's either crossed your mind to do it for the money or you already are." is a very fucked up accusation. If you had read through the entire post maybe you would have understood it. I only posted because I have heard this reason over and over again from people. I come in contact with dog owners every minute of the day at work and this is a reason I have heard more than once from people. I only figured this would be an interesting discussion, since the only discussions lately that have more than 2 or 3 replies are bashing threads. Figured it was time for a change of pace.

 

The answers to BYB motivation varies regionally, but none the less there is a strong market for pitbulls nationwide. I am from originally from Colorado, and we all know that Denver/Aurora Colorado are some of the worst BSL areas in the country. It did happen here that many people were well aware of BSL, and that inturn played a factor to over population in the surrounding counties, cities, etc. The "tough breed" persona definately played a factor here. Before pitbulls it was "tough" to own Rottweilers, Dobermans, and Chow Chows. All of these had their turn with overbreeding. These things are cyclical, and BSL and its media coverage has a role. I do though agree that greed is much more of a motivator.

 

I live in texas and i dont know how much of a policy you are required to have in Ohio but i have a half million dollar policy and it only costs me $78 every quarter. If you would like i can give you the name of the insurance provider. Just pm me.

 

Damn, why you getting so defensive? I thought you were just making a general statement, you know something that applies to all people in that situation. With the response you made I now think you were/are speaking of yourself. My statement stands and must have some truth to it for you to jump up and get all hissy pissy.

Bashing? What about honest opinions?

 

I suppose its because BSL hasnt hit here very hard yet. People are free to do whatever they please as far as breeding/owning Pit Bulls goes. Before I got into Game Dogs I had no clue what it was. Sad, I know. It makes me sick to think of someone outlawing our dogs, but on that day I'll be an outlaw. Because BSL is not a factor here I think the sole motivator is money.

 

having to breed dogs to make insurance payments?

come on......

If it's that big of an issue, they should move to where they can keep their dog without having to shell out bucks, not add to the over population problem. the lengths people go to to justtify their actions amazes me sometimes.

I live in OH, and my homeowner's insurance has no side policy for a dangerous/vicious breed, etc. I told the agent that we had a JRT, and very soon planned on getting an APBT after we bought our house. She was very upfront with me, that if either dog, jrt or apbt, got loose and caused any damage to people, property, whatever, that we would be dropped immediately if we were at fault in the situation. She said it could be any breed of dog, it bites, you're dropped. And then you have problems getting coverage from any company unless you make the dog go away.

(btw she was amzed when I walked down to the office a few weeks ago to drop off the check how "well-mannered she was for one of 'those' pit bulls"," and she was also under the impression they were all large w/ bowed loegs, and couldn't believe the size of her)

Our carrier's line on t.v. is "You're in good hands with..."

I've had no problems with them.

people who are peddlin dogs to pay bills needs snipped or tied themselves.

 

my opinion people breed for money about 90% of the time..not just saying pitbulls,any dog,cat ,horse,bird,ect..10% breed to restock,or maintain a bloodline they like..those 10% spend more money on a litter than they may ever be worth..hmmm i wonder how many insurance companys sponser bsl..

 

I got pissed because you started with all the "you" this and "you" that. Stay on topic and stop trying to turn this into yet another bashing thread, and stop accuseing me of shit.

 

One word: YES. All it does it make something even more of a hot commodity, more "rare", & more significant in the status/reputation departement. Statistics show that BSL does not limit dog bites nor has it limited the number of banned breeds in the area (proof is in the numbers being brought in to the shelters)

 

As I said I was speaking in a general statement as you were:rolleyes: . You got defensive, so now I feel as though you were referring to yourself in your original post. If you feel like I was talking about you then maybe I was. You made it out to be as if I were talking about you specifically. We as people use the word "you" for general statements all the time, so if you specifically feel like it's a problem, take it up with all the English teachers and professors across the globe.

BTW, the topic you posted referred to people breeding for money because of insurance and I responded directly to that, hence why I posted your quote in my reply.

 

No. If people cannot afford a dog & what it takes to keep that dog, then they should not have a dog! And when I say be able to afford it, I mean that they should get a damn job themself or even 2 if need be. Using your dogs' reproductive capabilities to buy nice things, drive a nice car, live in a nice house & a nice town is downright despicable. I've heard all the excuses in the world, but the truth is they just like the easy money. Period. I know people (including myself) that have fallen upon hard times & found money other ways even if it meant taking on a second or even a third job, getting rid of a dog or two so the number is down to an affordable one, etc.

 

I haven't seen any evidence that BSL affects the population of a banned breed one way or the other. In places like Denver, Co or Yakima, Wa, where breed bans are strictly enforced, you can still get a pit bull for under 200 dollars, so I don't see any particular rise in demand.

As far as breeding dogs for money, I'm not of the opinion that it's always a bad thing. A good many of the best dogs in the world were bred for money. There are responsible breeders, and then there are not, regardless of how money may factor into things. But selling dogs doesn't always equate to irresponsibility.