Pitbulls. Do they have a bad rep?

[Furcifer]

The assumed benefits of spaying/neutering should always be weighed against the risks of removing a chunk of the endocrine system, and the risks demonstrably go down after reaching full adulthood. Different breeds of dog reach adulthood at different rates. This is a significant set of factors that gets completely ignored by mandatory spay neuter laws, and it does so at the detriment of the health of pets.

I see now what you are saying. I don't care if you have your dog fixed at 6 months or 2 years. This debate has been going on for a while and it doesn't matter as much as the sterilization itself.

Given the cost of licensing and what I am proposing waiting until the dog is 2 years before sterilizing might amount to a couple hundred dollars at most, around here about $150.

 

[GlennB]

Here we go with the inherent BS again. If yo0u can prove it all you have to do is bring the evidence. .

The evidence is quoted in the links to the original articles. If you think they are lying, prove it. If you think they have chosen to omit the spaniel attacks then prove it.

You're appealing to authority and yet the only basis for such authority is that they're a website that "recommends" them.

They're a specialist PB rescue and rehoming site. Are you suggesting they know worse than you?

Oh, and I'd love to see one of these "specialised greyhound collars" you mention. Without even seeing I'm going to predict you'll post a martingale collar or a gentle lead harness

Failed mindreading on your part, yet again.

Greyhounds will slip a normal collar in a jiffy, as their neck really doesn't stop tapering till it reaches its nose. A greyhound collar fits on the neck in the normal manner but is very broad to prevent slipping. We bought ours from a greyhound rescue centre that had a stand at the local dog show.

Now you're just outright lying. Quote me where I said anyone needs "specialised PB handling skills" or anything of the like. That you keep making up these blatant falsehoods shows how ramped up on confirmation bias and active imagination when it comes to trying to prove something you can't.

Lying????

I didn't say that bolded bit. Read for comprehension. I said that in the absence of such skills a break stick would be needed to separate dog from target. At this point you would post a huge, gaudy 'strawman' cartoon ... I'll make do with a mere :---

I can stop a pit bull attack without a break stick, and have done so in the past. It's all about understanding how the dogs focus and how to break that focus without hurting the dogs involved or yourself. Break sticks are a convenience tool specifically designed for the type of jaws of bully breeds, they're not a requisite .

where "not a requisite" can only mean, in context, that the alternative is specialised dog handling skills.

eta: or that the bully-breed owner goes entirely unequipped to break the dog's grip on its target.

 

[bethgsd]

No, I'm saying hit them in the pocket book. If you want an intact dog you should have the privilege to do so. The price should be based accordingly. If no altered dogs roam more than twice as much, they tax the system more than twice as much. I don't mind paying for animal services in my city but I want to pay it based statistically on my likelihood of using it.

You should know however that not fixing your dog is going to cost you more money in the long run.

I must admit I was a little hesitant to have my male dog fixed, as I guy, until I read the info. It really is better for the dog. But if people want to look at a big muscled dog, and his balls, and his exposed penis (intact dogs display "the lipstick" much more often than altered dogs) go right ahead.

.

GreNME has done such a good job on explaining the problems with mandatory spay/neuter and the health consequences for certain types of dogs with altering that I'm not going to rehash that. But for someone to decide that a dog is kept intact just to "look at a big muscled dog" without knowing the circumstances is way off the mark. When a dog is trained and competes muscle mass and ability to maintain a good body weight can be very important.

My dog, the one where muscling is important, is based on what I hope to accomplish with him as a performance dog. He has the right attitude and appears to enjoy it so why not give him every physical benefit? (And he is not particularly well muscled so why do something detrimental?)

And why not based the fines on the dogs actually roaming? Punish the deed, not the gonads. It is amazing how fences and leashes can prevent roaming.

 

[GreNME]

The evidence is quoted in the links to the original articles. If you think they are lying, prove it. If you think they have chosen to omit the spaniel attacks then prove it.

The only links you've provided use media reports or the Clifton report for numbers. I've already showed the Clifton report for the fraud it was, and I've pointed out the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. You may have missed it but I've already debunked your bunk, you're just not accepting it.

They're a specialist PB rescue and rehoming site. Are you suggesting they know worse than you?

They're no more "specialist" than the folks on the Animal Planet television shows "Pit Boss" are "specialist" rescue. You keep using the word "special" so much it's practically meaningless. You're appealing to authority without establishing why anyone should consider it an authority, and the link you're referencing is part of the rescue site's store (which undermines your claim of authority).

Failed mindreading on your part, yet again.

Greyhounds will slip a normal collar in a jiffy, as their neck really doesn't stop tapering till it reaches its nose. A greyhound collar fits on the neck in the normal manner but is very broad to prevent slipping. We bought ours from a greyhound rescue centre that had a stand at the local dog show.

If that's the line they sold you the collars with then you got played, sir. Unless you can show some kind of "specialised" collar that isn't just one of these or a gentle lead collar-- neither of which are "specialised" at all-- then you're just making more baseless claims. No mind-reading required: just knowledge in the place of your ignorance.

But by all means, please give us a link to one of these "specialised" collars you're talking about. I could use a good laugh.

Lying????

I didn't say that bolded bit. Read for comprehension. I said that in the absence of such skills a break stick would be needed to separate dog from target. At this point you would post a huge, gaudy 'strawman' cartoon ... I'll make do with a mere :---

Yup, lying. I've stated over and over and over that there are no specialized skills required. You're the one who keeps beating that strawman and demanding I explain it. I've explained it: you're making crap up and now lying about my so-called advice. I gave no advice except that keeping calm is highly important (but neither the beginning nor the end). You keep attributing "advice" to me that I never gave, and no matter how many times I state I never gave advice you keep asserting otherwise.

where "not a requisite" can only mean, in context, that the alternative is specialised dog handling skills.

eta: or that the bully-breed owner goes entirely unequipped to break the dog's grip on its target.

False dichotomy, and your edit is just building on that false dichotomy. Breaking a pit bull off a bite is just like breaking a Doberman or a Rottweiler or a mastiff off a bite. There's no special anything required. Full stop. You are completely making crap up and using confirmation bias to continue claiming otherwise. A break bar is about as necessary to breaking a pit bull bite as something like this is to driving-- in other words, not at all but it might make some folks feel comfortable having it. Maybe if the makers of the thing shaped it like a magical feather the obviousness would sink in a little better.

 

[GreNME]

Didn't you just sat you knew how to do fractions? Male dogs roam because testosterone makes them. Removing the hormone removes that drive. Given this study and basic physiology there's a distinct correlation, if you dispute it the onus is on you to support your position.

Highlighted the pertinent statement here. Sorry, but the onus is still on you to:

• Define "roaming"
• Point out where the study establishes testosterone as the cause of the "roaming" you've defined
• Explain why it is not just males of any given breed who are subject to "roaming" if it's high testosterone levels that cause it

My guess is the study you're referencing probably has some vague explanation for the first, but doesn't even touch the latter two because the sampling is so small.

If you are working from the premise that people don't follow the law you make a case for banning dogs. This is just defeatist. It's not Anarchy out here, laws work.

You must be joking. Do gun control laws keep criminals who have guns from using them? Do speed limit laws keep people from speeding on the road? Do jaywalking laws keep people from jaywalking? The answer to all of those is "no," because the laws are only applicable if people get caught. When a dog is found out loose and the owner denies they owned the dog, then what's the legal recourse from that point? If the owner never licensed the dog in the first place then what proof does the law have to prosecute?

Case in point: Long Beach, California has had MSN for something near 30 years, and yet they still have stray problems (their site if you'd like to contact them and verify). The laws don't work-- not even where they've been in effect for decades-- because not everyone licenses their animals, not everyone claims their animals, and in the end the only people that the law attacks and penalizes are otherwise responsible owners or law-abiding citizens.

Strawman? I didn't bring up mandatory sterilization laws you did. That statement wasn't directed at you. It was intended to be a sarcastic response to the uninformed wanting to keep their dog intact.

And I pointed out that the logical conclusion of your response is MSN, which is a bag of fail. Whenever someone says "there oughtta be a law" the case is usually quite the opposite-- mandatory sterilization is one such case.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying at all. I never mentioned mandatory sterilization laws except possibly in response to egregious offenders. I'm saying the ones who we know put the biggest burden on the system pay for the system accordingly.

And if you can come up with a way to somehow track down these offenders without putting responsible and honest folks in the attack path, then you'll have revolutionized animal rights activism and solved a problem that's currently making pet ownership more of a burden on those who want to play by the rules.

I understand you're describing some ideal that you'd like, but I'm responding with the reality that is.

 

[GreNME]

My dog, the one where muscling is important, is based on what I hope to accomplish with him as a performance dog. He has the right attitude and appears to enjoy it so why not give him every physical benefit? (And he is not particularly well muscled so why do something detrimental?)

Considering the fact that you can purchase taurine, creatinine, and other amino acids for muscle development, as well as providing regular exercise for your dog, "muscling up" isn't exactly a stellar defense for keeping the dog intact. If the dog is an adult and the growth plates are closed (meaning no more growth spurts), then neutering isn't going to make much of a big deal unless you're planning on breeding (or showing) the dog. If your dog is competing-- which I can't tell from your posts because you keep mentioning it in an implied sense and not an affirmative one-- then that's also a justification for keeping intact (after all, one hopes to breed the winners), but if you're not and just mentioning competition on the side then I don't see how what others might do applies to you. I've neutered my GSD despite very likely having been able to compete with him in obedience, if not schutzhund had I gotten him as a puppy. The reason is that I'm not serious about competing in those events myself and he already has a "job" to keep him occupied, happy, and well-exercised. Since I also have no plans to breed him (he's a rescue), it was no trouble deciding to snip him.

 

[Bmorepitbull]

Hey GlennB,
I made a response to the claim that APBTs (since you have since been unable to grasp what is actually a "pitbull") require a 'break stick', and you have failed to respond to my post. Why would a dog with a medium/medium high (depending on the dog) bite strength require a 'break stick' while dogs with much more powerful jaws are not "required"/"recommended" to have 'break sticks?'

I would appreciate it if this time you could actually respond to my post.

***Fixed grammar

 

[Furcifer]

Highlighted the pertinent statement here. Sorry, but the onus is still on you to:

• Define "roaming"
• Point out where the study establishes testosterone as the cause of the "roaming" you've defined
• Explain why it is not just males of any given breed who are subject to "roaming" if it's high testosterone levels that cause it

Roaming is usually defined as searching for territory and a potential mate. It's usually highlighted by "marking". I suspect you're simply playing Devil's Advocate, you can't possibly own a dog and not know what roaming is. They sniff, pee and runaway, usually smiling like the Cheshire cat in the process.

The study doesn't have to establish the effects of testosterone.

From my understanding females are only considered to be roaming when they are in estrous. It's testosterone in males responsible for roaming, estrogen and progesterone in females.

My guess is the study you're referencing probably has some vague explanation for the first, but doesn't even touch the latter two because the sampling is so small.

Since it was a study on male dogs, probably not.

You must be joking. Do gun control laws keep criminals who have guns from using them? Do speed limit laws keep people from speeding on the road? Do jaywalking laws keep people from jaywalking? The answer to all of those is "no," because the laws are only applicable if people get caught. When a dog is found out loose and the owner denies they owned the dog, then what's the legal recourse from that point? If the owner never licensed the dog in the first place then what proof does the law have to prosecute?

Evidence? If they didn't work everyone would speed and all criminals would use guns in the commission of a crime. I believe the onus is on you to prove laws don't work.

If the costs and fines were increased the authorities would have the resources prosecute offenders. It's VERY easy to determine if the owner is lying, dogs leave genetic material EVERYWHERE. Welcome to 2010

Case in point: Long Beach, California has had MSN for something near 30 years, and yet they still have stray problems (their site if you'd like to contact them and verify). The laws don't work-- not even where they've been in effect for decades-- because not everyone licenses their animals, not everyone claims their animals, and in the end the only people that the law attacks and penalizes are otherwise responsible owners or law-abiding citizens.

Again, if the costs and fines were increased the resources would be available to prosecute. Responsible owners license their dogs, have them fixed and don't let them roam. How do they penalized otherwise???

And I pointed out that the logical conclusion of your response is MSN, which is a bag of fail. Whenever someone says "there oughtta be a law" the case is usually quite the opposite-- mandatory sterilization is one such case.

What mandatory sterilization laws?

And if you can come up with a way to somehow track down these offenders without putting responsible and honest folks in the attack path, then you'll have revolutionized animal rights activism and solved a problem that's currently making pet ownership more of a burden on those who want to play by the rules.

I understand you're describing some ideal that you'd like, but I'm responding with the reality that is.

How exactly is making people pay for the privileged of owning a dog "putting responsible and honest folks in the attack path"?.

97% of fatal attacks were caused by unaltered dogs. Fix your dog and be worry free. Don't fix your dog and be ready to pay accordingly.

Have an unregistered dog in the target group responsible for fatalities or attacks on humans run the risk of being charged for having an unregistered weapon. Lie to police about ownership and risk prosecution for doing so.

Lose your registered dog, notify animal control immediately and pay a $25 recovery fee.

Lose your unregistered dog, $150 fine and $375 for registration (5 years mandatory)

Lose your unregistered dog and fail to claim it after 2 weeks and run the risk of criminal prosecution and thousands in fines.

Responsible breeders should be chipping their puppies anyways. A fixed, chipped dog should be $10 a year for registration. An unfixed Pitbull $250 per year. Make "looking cool" expensive.

People should call animal control on neighbors and report the address. Dogs aren't like guns, you can't keep them under your bed. If you can keep a dog from being seen it's probably not gong to get out and attack someone anyways.

Any how, this is off the top of my head. I think the problem is easily fixed if they (Animal control) were given the authority and the finances to do so. I think where we differ here is that you feel it's criminals that are responsible for the problem. I'm of the opinion it's simply a result of allowing people to own dogs without making them responsible for what happens.

 

[GlennB]

If that's the line they sold you the collars with then you got played, sir. Unless you can show some kind of "specialised" collar that isn't just one of these or a gentle lead collar-- neither of which are "specialised" at all-- then you're just making more baseless claims. No mind-reading required: just knowledge in the place of your ignorance.

But by all means, please give us a link to one of these "specialised" collars you're talking about. I could use a good laugh.

Put "greyhound collar" into google and you get many links to such as this :

edit: sorry that image would be a hotlink. Try this

and described as greyhound/whippet/lurcher collar. Extremely broad at the widest part to prevent it sliding up the dog's neck. And neither of the types you (again wrongly) predicted.

From greyhoundlifeline.co.uk (a rescue org) :
"Please note that the majority of greyhounds are well mannered on a lead and require nothing more than a greyhound collar (plus muzzle until your greyhound is 100% reliable) to walk them safely and easily. "

Get back to us when you learn how to make a post without a juvenile smiley and without embarrassing yourself by failing to make the simplest search. Your arrogance seems to extend to the whole subject of dogs.

 

[GlennB]

I took a look at the page on their site recommending owners have a 'break stick.' The funny thing was at the bottom of that page was a link to another part of their site were they were selling such items for 30 dollars a pop. Is it generally considered good skepticism to go on the say-so of a site that is selling a product it claims is necessary? Curious, that.

Furthermore, what exactly is your point about the alleged necessity of owning a 'break stick'? The site itself admits that the APBT and Staffie bite strength is lower then many other breeds of dogs. It also disabuses you of the myth that "Pit Bull type dogs have locking jaws" (the myth that I believe originated the 'break stick' woo product) so why should a person own one? Other then because a site selling them said you should own one of course.

I have worked at several shelters in my area and for several organizations promoting APBT and Bully awareness. I also frequent our local dog park were on any given day there are around a dozen APBT, Staffies, and Bully breed mixes. I own an APBT. Yet I have -never- seen or heard of anyone owning a 'break stick.' Maybe I'm just not as clever as you, but I really do fail to see what exactly a 'break stick' is meant to imply about Bully breed dogs.

Hi, sorry I missed this.

I unreservedly accept that some other dogs have bite force equal to or exceeding that of the BT breeds. BTs do, however, have very strong jaws.

I have not supported the myth that they have 'locking jaws', so no need to mention that.

I have also scoured PB websites - many of which sell absolutely nothing and can't be mis-represented as "stores" - and found many saying things like this:

'If you've travelled in Pit Bull circles for any length of time, you've probably heard mention of something termed a "breaking stick"
or "break stick". This is a safety item every Pit Bull owner should possess.'

Why? Well, we all agree that BTs are tenacious when they attack and difficult to remove from a target. In the words of the Animal Cops dog behaviourist "The trouble with these dogs is they don't let go".

Perhaps she was wrong, perhaps those specialist sites are wrong. Or perhaps the folks at the dog park keep the device in a pocket? Maybe you should ask them and point them at the advice given by PB specialists if they don't carry one.

 

[Furcifer]

Hi, sorry I missed this.

I unreservedly accept that some other dogs have bite force equal to or exceeding that of the BT breeds. BTs do, however, have very strong jaws.

I have not supported the myth that they have 'locking jaws', so no need to mention that.

I have also scoured PB websites - many of which sell absolutely nothing and can't be mis-represented as "stores" - and found many saying things like this:

'If you've travelled in Pit Bull circles for any length of time, you've probably heard mention of something termed a "breaking stick"
or "break stick". This is a safety item every Pit Bull owner should possess.'

Why? Well, we all agree that BTs are tenacious when they attack and difficult to remove from a target. In the words of the Animal Cops dog behaviourist "The trouble with these dogs is they don't let go".

Perhaps she was wrong, perhaps those specialist sites are wrong. Or perhaps the folks at the dog park keep the device in a pocket? Maybe you should ask them and point them at the advice given by PB specialists if they don't carry one.

I've never heard of a "break stick" until this thread. I seem to recall trainers in those suits having a stick of sorts, but I'm not sure.

In any event, everything I've heard so far leads me to believe this "break stick" is for training. If that's the case it's probably recommended for training just like a "bite sleeve" is. It isn't breed specific, but task specific. No?

 

[GlennB]

I've never heard of a "break stick" until this thread. I seem to recall trainers in those suits having a stick of sorts, but I'm not sure.

In any event, everything I've heard so far leads me to believe this "break stick" is for training. If that's the case it's probably recommended for training just like a "bite sleeve" is. It isn't breed specific, but task specific. No?

Somewhere up the thread it was pointed out that these devices are PB-specific, geared to the jaw geometry of PBs, and should not be used on other breeds.

 

[Furcifer]

Somewhere up the thread it was pointed out that these devices are PB-specific, geared to the jaw geometry of PBs, and should not be used on other breeds.

Perhaps just on dogs with a short muzzle? I'm not aware of them having any unique jaw geometry, although they do seem to have more pointy teeth, if that makes and sense.

Still seems like a training aid to me. Presenting it as a "must have" item for all Pitbull owners seems indicative of the problem: people are training their dogs to bite and hold. It's no different then those retriever rolls (it's like a stuffed sock on a rope) people use to training duck dogs. It's just that they train the dogs to be gentle.

 

[bethgsd]

Considering the fact that you can purchase taurine, creatinine, and other amino acids for muscle development, as well as providing regular exercise for your dog, "muscling up" isn't exactly a stellar defense for keeping the dog intact. If the dog is an adult and the growth plates are closed (meaning no more growth spurts), then neutering isn't going to make much of a big deal unless you're planning on breeding (or showing) the dog. If your dog is competing-- which I can't tell from your posts because you keep mentioning it in an implied sense and not an affirmative one-- then that's also a justification for keeping intact (after all, one hopes to breed the winners),

Yes, this dog competes in obedience and tracking. In fact when I mentioned neutering to the specialist is when the DACVS specialist cautioned against it. And since said specialist is someone that I know and I trust his medical opinion I'm going with it.
All of my dogs get plenty of exercise (and they all compete or did in their younger years) and the intact one gets extra exercises with the goal of preventing another injury in the opposite leg.

 

[GreNME]

Put "greyhound collar" into google and you get many links to such as this :

edit: sorry that image would be a hotlink. Try this

and described as greyhound/whippet/lurcher collar. Extremely broad at the widest part to prevent it sliding up the dog's neck. And neither of the types you (again wrongly) predicted.

From greyhoundlifeline.co.uk (a rescue org) :
"Please note that the majority of greyhounds are well mannered on a lead and require nothing more than a greyhound collar (plus muzzle until your greyhound is 100% reliable) to walk them safely and easily. "

Get back to us when you learn how to make a post without a juvenile smiley and without embarrassing yourself by failing to make the simplest search. Your arrogance seems to extend to the whole subject of dogs.

You get the laughing dog because your claim of "specialised" is so damned funny. The picture you posted is a greyhound-sized version of a sighthound collar-- again not a "specialised" item as you keep trying to assert. Yes, it fits sighthounds better for its shape, but it's for all manner of sighthound and is essentially a straight collar version of the martingale I've already posted (hence the taper to the buckle instead of being wide all the way around). If anything, the martingales I posted are more specialty items because they're made for looks and aesthetics along with being conformed to sighthounds' smaller heads.

The point you seem to be missing in all of this is that you first claim something is "specialised" and then you post common items as if there is some significance to them.

Hi, sorry I missed this.

I unreservedly accept that some other dogs have bite force equal to or exceeding that of the BT breeds. BTs do, however, have very strong jaws.

I have not supported the myth that they have 'locking jaws', so no need to mention that.

I have also scoured PB websites - many of which sell absolutely nothing and can't be mis-represented as "stores" - and found many saying things like this:

'If you've travelled in Pit Bull circles for any length of time, you've probably heard mention of something termed a "breaking stick"
or "break stick". This is a safety item every Pit Bull owner should possess.'

Why? Well, we all agree that BTs are tenacious when they attack and difficult to remove from a target. In the words of the Animal Cops dog behaviourist "The trouble with these dogs is they don't let go".

Perhaps she was wrong, perhaps those specialist sites are wrong. Or perhaps the folks at the dog park keep the device in a pocket? Maybe you should ask them and point them at the advice given by PB specialists if they don't carry one.

You really have no clue how much selection bias you've just described, do you? You're also still using "specialised" in place of "boutique" or "common" in your qualifications, which is also indicative of you arguing from ignorance and claiming some kind of special quality to your assertions (which an APBT owner has directly refuted, no less).

At this point it's clear you have no intention of actually being informed on the subject, you're simply engaging to press your ideological stance regardless. (which I find amusing and quite helpful, so by all means don't stop on my account )

 

[GreNME]

Roaming is usually defined as searching for territory and a potential mate. It's usually highlighted by "marking". I suspect you're simply playing Devil's Advocate, you can't possibly own a dog and not know what roaming is. They sniff, pee and runaway, usually smiling like the Cheshire cat in the process.

The study doesn't have to establish the effects of testosterone.

From my understanding females are only considered to be roaming when they are in estrous. It's testosterone in males responsible for roaming, estrogen and progesterone in females.

That's a pretty narrow definition of "roaming" as far as dog behavior goes. If this is the type of definition that the study you describe was looking at, then it wasn't "roaming" in the sense of what strays do at all and was instead looking at a type of reproductive behavior. Cut the gonads and get just under a 50% chance of curbing a reproductive behavior? Not very good odds at curbing that behavior, and is pretty much the definition of "hit or miss" (which I already pointed out to Emet earlier).

Since it was a study on male dogs, probably not.

Which again is indicative of unrepresentative sampling for judging the efficacy of spaying/neutering with regard to dogs running about stray. Dogs that go stray go stray for a number of reasons, only some of which have to do with reproductive imperatives, and can range from anything between being in heat to the yard owner not keeping their dog's area secure to the dog itself being quite a talented escape artist for its own sake. The study you pointed out only covers one subset of reasons dogs, and even for that subset it's less than 50% effective.

You must be joking. Do gun control laws keep criminals who have guns from using them? Do speed limit laws keep people from speeding on the road? Do jaywalking laws keep people from jaywalking? The answer to all of those is "no," because the laws are only applicable if people get caught. When a dog is found out loose and the owner denies they owned the dog, then what's the legal recourse from that point? If the owner never licensed the dog in the first place then what proof does the law have to prosecute?

Evidence? If they didn't work everyone would speed and all criminals would use guns in the commission of a crime. I believe the onus is on you to prove laws don't work.

You're being a bit deceptive here. You want me to prove that all laws don't work? That's ridiculous. What I can easily prove is that most people flout laws that are meant to curb behaviors. Go drive on a (4-lane) highway at the speed limit-- I can predict that greater than 80% of the other drivers on that highway will pass you for driving too slow. Go watch a city street where there are jaywalking laws-- you're going to find at leas half (if not more) people are going to fail to use the crosswalk unless they are already at the corner.

If you're looking for evidence of MSN being ineffective, then all you have to do is look at animal licensing stats (which drop quickly) for any city that's instituted MSN laws, and the shelter population which doesn't change significantly one way or the other in such cities. From Los Angeles to New York City to Dallas, MSN laws have done nothing to affect the shelter population positively or bring revenue to the animal control units for better enforcement. If you like we can pick a city and track down all the pertinent numbers ourselves and do the math-- I can guarantee I'll be unsurprised and you may very well be disappointed.

If the costs and fines were increased the authorities would have the resources prosecute offenders. It's VERY easy to determine if the owner is lying, dogs leave genetic material EVERYWHERE. Welcome to 2010

Are you confusing the current year with the movie GATTACA? You think municipal law enforcement is going to do a DNA sweep of suspected individuals' homes to establish that they have, indeed, owned a dog that was found stray? Is that really what you're implying with this quote? I really hope you mean something more realistic, but you're going to have to tell me what that is considering you're the one claiming "dogs leave genetic material EVERYWHERE" somehow discredits what I'm describing.

Again, if the costs and fines were increased the resources would be available to prosecute. Responsible owners license their dogs, have them fixed and don't let them roam. How do they penalized otherwise???

Ahh, now we're getting to the meat of the issue. Do you think that people who don't spay or neuter their dog are irresponsible owners? If yes can you explain why you think this in a manner that isn't a tautology (i.e. - not fixed = irresponsible; thus irresponsible to be not fixed)?

How exactly is making people pay for the privileged of owning a dog "putting responsible and honest folks in the attack path"?.

Your statement pretty much makes that self-evident. Since when does government get to tell us whether or not we can have a pet? Is that really the rhetorical path you want to take this?

97% of fatal attacks were caused by unaltered dogs.

[citation needed]

Fix your dog and be worry free. Don't fix your dog and be ready to pay accordingly.

You have way too much overconfidence in the efficacy of spaying and neutering considering the actual rate of efficacy you've provided in a study so far is not far off from that of a coin flip (50/50).

Have an unregistered dog in the target group responsible for fatalities or attacks on humans run the risk of being charged for having an unregistered weapon. Lie to police about ownership and risk prosecution for doing so.

Lose your registered dog, notify animal control immediately and pay a $25 recovery fee.

Lose your unregistered dog, $150 fine and $375 for registration (5 years mandatory)

Lose your unregistered dog and fail to claim it after 2 weeks and run the risk of criminal prosecution and thousands in fines.

Responsible breeders should be chipping their puppies anyways. A fixed, chipped dog should be $10 a year for registration. An unfixed Pitbull $250 per year. Make "looking cool" expensive.

People should call animal control on neighbors and report the address. Dogs aren't like guns, you can't keep them under your bed. If you can keep a dog from being seen it's probably not gong to get out and attack someone anyways.

Any how, this is off the top of my head. I think the problem is easily fixed if they (Animal control) were given the authority and the finances to do so. I think where we differ here is that you feel it's criminals that are responsible for the problem. I'm of the opinion it's simply a result of allowing people to own dogs without making them responsible for what happens.

That's all a very nice fairy tale type of neighborhood you've developed. So what you have included in your scenario are:

• 1 the muni government somehow knowing how to tell who an unlicensed dog they find belongs to (magical thinking)
• Breed-specific legislation on top of mandatory spay and neuter laws
• Prosecuting people for "looking cool" (whatever that means)
• Have laws specifically prejudicial against anyone owning a dog who can be defined as in a "target group" for being dangerous
• Encourage reporting of neighbors by other neighbors

Awesome. I already don't want to live in your ideal neighborhood. My dog already falls in your target group and I'd prefer to not live in an area where paranoia is fostered. I already go to lengths to assure strangers that my dog is not dangerous, I already have to deal with homeowner's insurance premiums because of attitudes like you're displaying, and I find the ideal you're presenting morally and ethically repugnant.

You question how responsible owners pay the cost for attempts to legislate against irresponsible ownership, and yet you define a situation that does precisely what I've said. Great job in making my point for me.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

those aren't fractions they're percentages
that's not specialized it's been designed for sighthounds

that bike's been designed just for me
it's too much for a kid like you

that bike'd grind you up and spit out the seeds,
sport

I could ride it

yeah yeah don't make me laugh
maybe when you've downed your first clown.

 

[GreNME]

Still waiting for a better response with evidence than "LOL fractions" from you, Captain.Sassy.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Thanks but I have a rubber ball and a brick wall to bounce it off at home.

 

[Furcifer]

That's a pretty narrow definition of "roaming" as far as dog behavior goes. If this is the type of definition that the study you describe was looking at, then it wasn't "roaming" in the sense of what strays do at all and was instead looking at a type of reproductive behavior. Cut the gonads and get just under a 50% chance of curbing a reproductive behavior? Not very good odds at curbing that behavior, and is pretty much the definition of "hit or miss".

At this point I'm going to conclude you're just arguing to argue. I pointed out your mistake and you continue to make it (fractions). You also asked for a citation that's been made 2 or 3 times in this thread already. You continue to argue the conclusions of a 5 (3?) year study on animal behavior by reputable veterinary college with absolutely nothing but a lot of hand waving. I mean you don't have any study that refutes the fact that roaming was reduced by up to 90% in fixed animals. Just a bunch of "Yahbut's". You know as well as anyone this is universally accepted by vets and owners alike and the onus is on you to prove otherwise.
Oh and it isn't "hit or miss" even if it was 50% (it's 66%).

Read this then we'll talk