Re: forced seizure & euthanasia of dogs in mon

[EarthMama]

The prohibition does not apply to a person who:

(a) owned a pit bull dog and registered the ownership of the dog with the county government and obtained a license tag identifying the dog as a registered pit bull dog on or before [the effective date of this act];

(b) is temporarily transporting a securely confined pit bull dog through the state; or

(c) is showing a pit bull dog in a place of public exhibition, contest, or show sponsored by a dog club, association, or similar organization when the sponsor of the exhibition or show has:

(i) obtained written permission from the county for the showing of pit bull dogs; and

(ii) provided protective measures to prevent a pit bull dog from escaping or injuring the public.

(4) A pit bull dog registered under subsection (3)(a) must at all times wear the license tag identifying the dog as a registered pit bull dog.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm all for this bill. Legitimate pit bull dog owners will make sure they get their dogs licensed and there won't be a problem. The people who use these dogs for fighting won't.

No legitimate pit bull dog owners are going to have to surrender their dogs or have them euthanized.

This is one way of curbing the rampant dog fighting industry that only seems to be getting larger with time.

[chickenfried]

I don't own a pit bull and I don't really like them but government telling people what kind of dog they are allowed to have is BS.

[Magnificent_Madame]

I don't own a pit bull and I don't really like them but government telling people what kind of dog they are allowed to have is BS.

I agree. Requiring euthanasia of vicious (sp) individual dogs makes sense. Regulating a whole breed is asinine.

[momma_to_seven_chi]

I'm torn on this issue. I think the entire breed is unsafe. There have been too many deaths of other animals and humans, attacks, and mere bites to even consider such a breed as a companion animal. But bigger government is not a good thing. What if someone mistook a lab with a stubby nose as a pit? Why would it be right for a dog warden to be able to seize and destroy a pet without proof it if being a pit? And is merely looking like a suspicious dog enough to warrant destruction? Why should an owner have to prove themselves innocent rather that government having to prove them guilty of having the dangerous dog breed.

Frankly, I wish there were a way to destroy the entire breed from the entire nation. They are too dangerous to be allowed to exist in the general public as pets. But it would have to be done in such a way as not to infringe on personal rights, and that is impossible in this bill's wording. If they want to deem them dangerous dogs that must be destroyed, then they should have to prove by a DNA test that the dog is indeed a pit. The owner should not be assumed guilty just on someone looking at a dog and jumping to the conclusion by site.

[EarthMama]

All people would have to do is get their dog(s) licensed and there would be no problem. I think most counties in this country have licensure laws anyway. I know ours does.

When you think about it, what this law proposes should be done by all decent dog owners anyway.... licensing, providing measures to make sure any dog doesn't escape its confines and injure someone or something else, etc.

Unfortunately, pitbulls are the primary breed that is used in dog fighting. As usual, it's the law breakers that make it difficult for everybody. But if that's what it takes to stop the horrendous dog fighting problem, then so be it.

But I agree.... the few have to ruin it for the many. Unfortunately.

[Jezcruzen]

"But I agree.... the few have to ruin it for the many. Unfortunately."

That should never be the excuse in a free society. Bad owners make for bad dogs, regardless of the breed. I have strong issues with some government dictating to me what breed of dog I can own.

How about this, when those who fight these dogs are caught, THEY get euthanized. That should stop dogfighting in Montana in short order!

[rivahmom]

"But I agree.... the few have to ruin it for the many. *Unfortunately."

That should never be the excuse in a free society. *Bad owners make for bad dogs, regardless of the breed. *I have strong issues with some government dictating to me what breed of dog I can own. *

How about this, when those who fight these dogs are caught, THEY get euthanized. *That should stop dogfighting in Montana in short order!

I agree with you 100%. I may not like the breeds but if you give an inch the gov. will take a mile. What breed would be next? It is the owners of agressive dogs that have the problem. They should be the ones receiving the punishment.

[EarthMama]

"But I agree.... the few have to ruin it for the many. Unfortunately."

That should never be the excuse in a free society. Bad owners make for bad dogs, regardless of the breed. I have strong issues with some government dictating to me what breed of dog I can own.

How about this, when those who fight these dogs are caught, THEY get euthanized. That should stop dogfighting in Montana in short order!

I hear what you're sayin', Jezcruzen. The only problem is... the bad owners who are making these pitbulls bad, happen to have dogs that have some "meat behind their muscle". In other words, their bite is much worse than their bark.

I had a Standard Poodle one time that had a really lousy temperament. We worked around it but we definitely knew what we had and watched him like a hawk. He died at 13 years old but there wasn't a day of his life that we trusted him. And he went through the full obedience training because we were involved in the clubs ourselves. One day my husband told me... "Can you imagine if this dog were a pitbull?" In other words, our dog was very aggressive but... he was "Standard Poodle aggressive"... meaning that he could definitely have taken somebody down but not killed them or come even close. Whereas a pitbull is a mighty different story.

The government dictates a lot more stuff to you than what kind of dog you can own. And, in reality, this bill isn't really dictating to you what kind of dog you can own. It's just telling you what you have to do if you want a pitbull. People who are serious about wanting one are going to have to jump through the hoops to get it... and if they're dedicated, they will. It won't be a problem for them.

Anything to stop the pitbull dog fighting. Anything. At least that's how I feel about it.

Good luck in getting the owners of the fighting dogs euthanized. Many cops, judges, attorneys, doctors, etc. in our area are betting on the dogs every weekend around here!!!! Their little "log book" is loaded with very prominent names! I'm sure we're not the only ones with this problem. I'm surprised this bill even came to the floor, actually. I'm shocked the big spenders didn't stop it before it saw the light of day.

[EarthMama]

It is the owners of agressive dogs that have the problem. They should be the ones receiving the punishment.

The owners will receive the punishment... they'll have their dogs seized. And I'll bet you a dime to a dollar that the pitbull owners who don't have their dogs registered are the ones who are fighting them.... and their little "money makers" being seized and euthanized is something they DON'T want to happen. Better euthanized than a life of suffering and pain, before dying a torturous death in the fighting ring.

Working in rescue as we have, all these years, I have come to realize that there are fates MUCH worse than death for an abused animal. Death is a blessed relief for most of them.

[MooseToo]

so if dog-fighting is the (excuse - reason - boogey man), why not make dog-fighting a capital offense -

[crafty2002]

The owners will receive the punishment... they'll have their dogs seized. *And I'll bet you a dime to a dollar that the pitbull owners who don't have their dogs registered are the ones who are fighting them.... and their little "money makers" being seized and euthanized is something they DON'T want to happen. Better euthanized than a life of suffering and pain, before dying a torturous death in the fighting ring.

Working in rescue as we have, all these years, I have come to realize that there are fates MUCH worse than death for an abused animal. *Death is a blessed relief for most of them. *


Death will be a blessed relief for myself, and it is something I look forward to.
Pain and suffering is something that no human nor animal should be made to endure. Yet the laws of this great nation of ours allow me to hurt every day I am alive to a certain extent. I haven't been without pain for 30 years but the doctor say I don't hurt.
Maybe I need to get a pit bull and take it to the doctors office along with a baseball bat and tell them, no, you don't need anything for pain. Just live with it. ;D
The only reason I am still alive is because my wife and daughter needs a caretaker.
Any one that fights an animal needs to come and see me. Dogs, chickens, whatever. I actually get relief from pain when I get mad. The adraline I guess.
Send them to me. I don't care. Any time I see someone abuseing anyone or animal, I don't hurt no mo. ;D

[Jezcruzen]

We've been through all the Michael Vick hearing here in Virginia. Dogfighting, like cock fighting, is indeed wide-spread and is kept going in some instances by the involvement of prominent people.

I own a German Shepherd and a Rottweiler (our second rotti) and we have experienced the bias some have over the breed, not the dog itself. Some have walked up and googgled over him and ask what breed he is. When I tell the that he's a Rotti, they recoil back a few steps.

I just hate knowing that the dogs are the ones being truly punished while their owners and handlers walk away.

[EarthMama]

so if dog-fighting is the (excuse - reason - boogey man), why not make dog-fighting a capital offense -

I'd love to make dog fighting a capital offense... at least life in prison anyhow. But getting a bill like that to pass would be a lot harder than getting this other one to. :-/

[EarthMama]

I just hate knowing that the dogs are the ones being truly punished while their owners and handlers walk away.

Yep. Me too.

[leera]

More and more states and counties are implementing these types of laws.Here in MI,it's illegal for a minor to even walk a Pit Bull in Detroit.

The majority of animal shelters have a NO adoption rule for Pit Bulls as well,any that come in are put down,regardless.

It's getting to the point that a lot of homeowners can not get insurance because of the dog they chose to own.
Check your policy,you might be surprised.

Bad people make things bad for everyone else.

I do not agree with the laws,and I happen to like Staffordshire terriers,which by the way have a totally different personality than an American Pit Bull(which is usually the cause of all the pit bull problems),but uneducated people will not be able to tell the difference between them.

The laws are designed to protect everyone from the bad ones out there,and unforuntately the innocent often pay the price along with those who should be punished.

In the county where I live,you get fined if your dog is not licensed,and you have no proof of rabies vaccination.This is the only county I've lived in that actually PATROLS the streets for unlicensed dogs.

[Dawgus]

Breed specific laws are as rediculous as the assault weapons ban was. What's next? banning Corvettes because they're faster than my Pontiac????? Rather than go after dog fighting rings, they go after the dog...again no different than going after firearms rather than criminals. They all claim that pitbull attacks are higher than any other breed, but I'm sure these stats are taken in inner city areas where dogfights are common, go figure. ::) With the same logic, we could say that beagles and coon dogs bark more when they're in the woods than any other breed........

In nearby Akron, the laws for pits are outlandish:

Failure to register dog results in mandatory $500 fine. Strict enforcement and fines will begin after grace period ending on March 19, 2007. City will send letter, registration application, and Animal Control / Pit Bull flyer out Monday March 5th to known pit bull owners. Fee is $25

Registration requires the following items:
Two photos of the dog
Proof of $50k liability insurance
Current Summit County dog license number
Proof of rabies vaccination (rabies tag number)
Tattoo or microchip number (if the dog is tattooed; an additional picture of the tattoo is required)
Purchase City-issued pit bull warning sign ($7) and display on premises.
Pit bulls must wear fluorescent green collar. Collars that meet the requirements are available upon registration for $6 (may also be purchased elsewhere.)
Owner must notify the Akron Customer Service Division within 24 hours if the dog has died or has been sold or donated, and provide the Customer Service Division with the name, address, and telephone number of the new owner.
Owner must keep dog secured at all times by one of the following means:
Inside owner’s home;
In a locked enclosure that has a top, a concrete base and with fencing securely attached or anchored to the concrete perimeter to a depth of six inches;
Keep the dog muzzled and on a chain-link leash that is not more than six feet in length which is held in the hand of a person who is of suitable age and discretion and is outside with the dog.

[EarthMama]

Boy, I sure am likin' all these new laws in various places that I'm hearin' about. ;D

Maybe someday animals in this country will indeed be assured of the rights they're entitled to...cos they sure ain't now, for the most part.

But it's getting better, it looks like. ::)

[harvester]

The bill failed. I live in the capitol city of montana where the bill was being processed. At the capitol building that day there were hundreds of people protesting. the people were allowed to come in and state their concerns briefly.
In the end, the bill failed miserably.

[EarthMama]

The bill failed. I live in the capitol city of montana where the bill was being processed. At the capitol building that day there were hundreds of people protesting. the people were allowed to come in and state their concerns briefly.
In the end, the bill failed miserably.


I'm sorry. You have my sympathy. Maybe next time around.

[harvester]

Well that was a nasty response there earthmama. There will be no second time around, the people have spoken their wishes and the local gov listenend. As is usually the case in montana. Only a very small percentage of pit bulls are truly nasty dogs. Atleast in my area. I have a crossbred one myself. I would never Push a bill that forces the killing of good dogs of good dog owners for the sake of a few bad eggs! Believe it or not, people actually do love their pets.

[WileyCoyote]

Well, I'm glad the bill failed. Congrats, Montana people!

We had a pit bull once. A brindle girl named Pepper, who was one of a litter of 12 whose mother died shortly after giving birth. We fostered, and bottle fed her and three brothers, and she was the only one who lived. She was the most non-vicious dog I've ever owned - and I've owned all sorts of breeds and mutts. She was playful and cuddly, even when she grew to be huge. She would sneak up and pounce on you like a cat, then knock you down and lick you all over, laughing. She had no idea how big or strong she was. She was also the worst watchdog we ever had - she would bark at people with her head down and hind end up, tail wagging, grinning. When you got close she would throw her big paws around your waist and lick your face. She wouldn't hurt a cat or our elderly spaniel and was very hurt and offended when the cats would bow up and scratch her in fear. Eventually the cats would all snuggle up to her. Pepper was a boisterous and joyful dog, even as she got older. People would be afraid of her size and bounciness at first, but once they took the trouble to get close to her, she would lay her head in their laps and stare lovingly at them, or bring them her toys, one by one, to throw.

The shelties and collies I had were much more reserved and quiet. The retreiver we had was just plain dumb - he'd throw bricks in the air to retrieve them, and always looked amazed when they bounced off of his head. Our spaniel has always believed he was the most abused dog on the planet, and would whimper when he wasn't the one getting attention. He would sit for hours and 'talk' to people, changing his voice and timbre and tone, trying to be understood. Our afghan is the most fun of all, though - she has absolutely no conception of right and wrong. She will lean down and snatch up a smaller animal or rodent, throwing it into the air and breaking its back, and then grin proudly. She likes to slam her huge paws down on either side of another animal and "WOOF" in a deep roaring bark just to terrify them. She thinks that's funny as heck. The horse thinks she is a pony; they sniff noses and play in the pasture together.

Dogs are dogs, just like people are people, and they all have different personalities, different attitudes, different pleasures and agonies. IMHO, to judge any breed of dog simply on what it has been trained to do, or forced to do to survive, is simply as wrong as saying that all black people should be slaves, that is their natural temperament, or that all Indians are lazy drunks who should be stuck on reservations for the rest of their lives. It is stereotyping, even racism or classism, pure and simple.

[harvester]

absolutely true, its not the dog, its the dog owner.
In my years as animal control 90% of dog bites that I dealt with came from cattle breeds. Herding dogs who nip at heals instinctively. As a family pet if that urge is not curbed at a young age, and respect for humans is not ingrained at a young age, the nipping instinct can get out of hand and turn into true biting.
Ive dealt with many people who have gotten new puppies for the family on training issues. Ive noticed that people who should have the cute cuddly baby type breeds and end up getting a herding breed, usually get rid of the dog before its a year old due to the fact they are not domininat enough over the cute little puppy to curb its nipping habbits at a young age.
Early training for herding breeds and power breeds is esential for breeding out the bad habbits. This is the reason that power breeds have come such a long way in thier history, turning from monstrous protection beasts to dedicated family members. Its being bred out of them.
Granted herding dogs are still being used very commonly today to work farms and the herding instinct and nipping at heals is a desirable trait for farmers. But I dont know of any farmer that has working herding dogs that would tollerate their dog putting their mouth on them! Respect for humans is a must in any breed, some moreso than others. New pet owners tend to go with the trendy, the cool, or the sheik. Not knowing exactly what they are getting into.
Herding and power breeds belong with experienced and dominating owners who have done their homework and have the dog for more than the reason that its a cute puppy and its available.

[rivahmom]

absolutely true, its not the dog, its the dog owner.
In my years as animal control 90% of dog bites that I dealt with came from cattle breeds. Herding dogs who nip at heals instinctively. As a family pet if that urge is not curbed at a young age, and respect for humans is not ingrained at a young age, the nipping instinct can get out of hand and turn into true biting.
Ive dealt with many people who have gotten new puppies for the family on training issues. Ive noticed that people who should have the cute cuddly baby type breeds and end up getting a herding breed, usually get rid of the dog before its a year old due to the fact they are not domininat enough over the cute little puppy to curb its nipping habbits at a young age.
Early training for herding breeds and power breeds is esential for breeding out the bad habbits. This is the reason that power breeds have come such a long way in thier history, turning from monstrous protection beasts to dedicated family members. Its being bred out of them.
Granted herding dogs are still being used very commonly today to work farms and the herding instinct and nipping at heals is a desirable trait for farmers. But I dont know of any farmer that has working herding dogs that would tollerate their dog putting their mouth on them! Respect for humans is a must in any breed, some moreso than others. New pet owners tend to go with the trendy, the cool, or the sheik. Not knowing exactly what they are getting into.
Herding and power breeds belong with experienced and dominating owners who have done their homework and have the dog for more than the reason that its a cute puppy and its available.
Very true. I own border collies that do agility and obedience. Working with them is a daily chore. It amazes me how many people want this type of dog but completely lack the understanding of the breed. My collies don't nip heels but they do herd and we had to train the kids along side the dog to prevent any mishaps due to the herding instict.

[EarthMama]

Well that was a nasty response there earthmama.

It wasn't meant to be nasty. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I thought you were just reporting on the outcome of the vote and were disappointed. I didn't know you felt otherwise.

[harvester]

I was simply reporting on the outcome of the vote. I never stated my opinion one way or another. Thank you for the appology. Ofcourse I would never condone the slaughter of innocent animals over a bad rap.

[seriessearcher]

I hate to agree with the law on this one, but there are too many bad breeders out there to take a chance.

Do not get me wrong, I hate laws restricting my rights but I can control my car and my gun. I can not control my dog. No one can, please do not even argue that. They are animals which do not reason. Fences fail they react to a natural situation.

You can not own a Tiger or a Lion in for good reason.

In the Denver area we have the ban after numerous deaths as well as attacks by these dogs. They are just to powerful to risk being on the loose. The owners never planned for them to get out, but they did. I would not want my family running into one of these dogs.

There are times when the good of the many out weight the needs of the few. This dog just has too much bad press for a reason. They are built to kill. They just are.

One of my dogs was food aggressive. We tried everything but he still could not control it. I put him down as I could not take the chance with kids or other people. I hated to do it, but again he was a dog.

[harvester]

such is the reason some people should never own dogs in the first place..

[EarthMama]

such is the reason some people should never own dogs in the first place..

And that's exactly what this bill would have prevented... people owning pitbulls who shouldn't.

[EarthMama]

I hate to agree with the law on this one, but there are too many bad breeders out there to take a chance.

Do not get me wrong, I hate laws restricting my rights but I can control my car and my gun. I can not control my dog. No one can, please do not even argue that. They are animals which do not reason. Fences fail they react to a natural situation.



Amen!

[Bruce]

First of all - there is no breed namjed Pit Bulls. The breeds name is Staffordhire Terrier, and they are, when properly bred, one of the friendliest breeds around. As a kid my neighbor bred them and they were all the sweetest dogs you've ever seen. Great with all the kids; never a problem with ANY other breed on their daily walks.

The problem came from irresponsible people who bred them too closely and trained them to fight using disgusting tactics. As usual, and like so many other things ... it's not the breed, silly - it's the owners! Responsible owners would never buy a dog from a private breeder without checking the papers of the bitch and father.

I'm astounded that anyone around here who values being left the heck alone by an ever-intrusive government would approve of nonsense like this. Destroy an entire "false" breed over the actions of irresponsible owners? BULL!

[Cat Lover]

First off, I'd like to apologize in advance for what I'm going to say. I'll be referring to the Bible, but I do not mean to advocate any particular faith, or to be critical of any either. I'm just looking at scripture, in this instance, as a time-tested collection of wisdom.

When Moses came down from Mt. Sinai whit God's laws, one section specifically discussed the 'ox that has gored.' That is, the obl;igations of an animal owner regarding a possibly dangerous animal, and how thos obligations change when an animal is proven to be dangerous.

I think the principles are still valid today. Any dog might be dangerous, but only after it is KNOWN to be dangerous need you take special precautions. If you fail to take these additional measures after the animal has proven to be dangerous, then you should be held to account.

I believe this applies to pit bulls - just like any other animal. Today all the hysteria is about 'pit bulls;' as I grew up, different areas had a similar prejudice against, in turn: sled dogs, German Shepherds, Dobermans, wolf/dog hybrids, and Rottweilers. In those instances, the problem didn't originate with the dogs, but, rather, with the people who owned them.

Condemning a dog because it has the potential to be a killer makes as much sense as arresting every woman because she has the potential to be a prostitute.

I've had any number of loose dogs turn up in my yard, including several 'pit bulls.' I've not had any trouble turning these animals over to animal control for return to their owners. Indeed, the only dogs that were 'dangerous' were some sort of retriever mix, that seemd quite serious about hunting down my cats.

(By contrast, I once had a wino surrender his pit to me for adopting out; that sweetheart had no issues with my cats for the few hours we had together).

If my neighbor has a pit bull, the only question I have is whether I want that person as a neighbor. While there are decent folks who have them as pets, it does seem to be a breed favored by immature or marginal folks.

Bad dogs are an indicator of bad people. You want to get rid of weeds, you have to get the roots.

[Cat Lover]

Oh ... regarding the issue of government intrusion:

As Paul Harvey often said, Self government can't work without self control.

Since pits tend to be owned by folks who lack that self control, I think it is legitimate to use the dogs as a way to identify such folks. If a new neighbor has a pit, I know I'm giving them a closer look than if they had a cockapoo .... even though the absolute worst neighbor I ever had owned a cockapoo!

I'm all in favor of government acting to address irresponsible or abusive pet owners. I'm also in favor of reasonable 'profiling.' Certain breeds can be part of a 'profile' in identifying poor pet owners. Again - and I also know an example to the contrary - folks who expect a dog to be mean and vicious and tough do not usually get a cocker spaniel.

[Oblio13]

The government shouldn't be licensing, registering or taxing dogs, let alone telling us what breeds we may own. That kind of society was Karl Marx's dream, not George Washington's.

[nhlivefreeordie]

The government shouldn't be licensing, registering or taxing dogs, let alone telling us what breeds we may own. That kind of society was Karl Marx's dream, not George Washington's.

Hear Hear!!...I don't particularly care for Pit Bulls, Dobermans or Pugs, but NO ONE should have a right to tell people what breed they may own. I know my Weimaraner has the potential to bite someone if the conditions are right, and he has made the attempt, but it wasn't his fault, it was an instinctual response, to something someone did to him, sometimes people need to use their heads....or get bit.

[Wicked Witch]

We have dogs, have had a number of different breeds and mutts over the years. I take exception to required licensing of them, especially of particular breeds (it costs money, don'tchaknow, and who knows how the government spends it).
Then again, I also take exception to other people's dogs on my property, especially in my chicken pen (that has 8' high fences and those fancy layers that my daughter collects are expensive to replace).
I guess that I'm lucky, in a sense. I have a known runner (a rescue pulled out of a gutter, and no amount of training has compensated for the damage she suffered from abuse before she wound up there). She isn't trusted for a second, but my local ACO has NEVER once had a call about her from anyone. He HAS put a dog trap next to my bird pen a number of times though. And dealt with the owners who expect me to release their dogs to them and get angry when I call him instead.
He's a LOT more interested in people keeping their animals on their own property than he is in enforcing the registration laws. The law here is that you get 3 chances to get your dog (or bull or goat or whatever) under control (each of those chances comes with hefty fines and a court date attached), then you lose it AND your property looses ALL of it's animal rights until the owner transfers the deed. If your animal is proven to have killed or injured another animal or person, it is put down on the spot (usually with a bullet), and the owner is responsible for all medical care of the injured and/or replacement of the animal attacked. In the case of a chicken, this includes the set up costs for brooding the chicks (even if only one bird is killed, it's for 3 chicks), feed, and setup of a separate coop and yard. Plus, the mandatory fines and court date. I like this approach better. Punish the owner, not the animal. Hit him in his pocket, hard. Considering that my bird pen and coop are smack dab in the center of my property and behind my house, the likelihood of an animal under it's owner's control being there is absurdly small. Which explains why the animal control officer likes to keep his trap there. :)
I understand that some might feel differently, but, this approach works for me and I like it MUCH better than the idea of punishing the animal because his owner is an idiot. The only time the animal gets punished is when it has injured or killed another. In a semi rural farming/ranching community, you can't have killer animals because then EVERYONE's livestock and pets are at risk.
Then again, I might feel differently if MY animals had been the ones that had been loose, but somehow, I seriously doubt it. The ACO has NEVER had a call on one of my animals, and believe me, when he first put the trap in my yard (it was catching 2-3 dogs a day then), everybody watched to see if they could catch me letting my dogs roam because it was "my fault" that they were having to go pick up their animals from the police department and pay fines and go to court. I could have just shot the dogs, but the ACO asked me to give him a year or two to educate people before I went to that extreme, I AM within city limits, after all. He also makes sure to tell offending owners that I DO have that right (livestock endangerment law) and the means to do so. :) Needless to say, at this point he is looking for another home for his dog trap on the other side of town now. I haven't had a dog in my yard in almost a year.

[nhlivefreeordie]

That worked out really well for you, and that is a smart ACO.
I had a neighbor that used to go away on weekends and leave his German Shepard roam the neighborhood till he got back. He was threatening to the neighborhood kids, and several of us parents got together and started calling the ACO every weekend he was away and the dog was running. After several weeks of that, they kept the dog and wouldn't give it back until he had a 8' high fence installed around his whole back yard, and they charged him board while he was waiting. Well, wouldn't you know, he got the dog back and two weeks later, went away again, and let the dog run, he came into my yard bit my youngest boy, and I shot him dead in my backyard, then called the ACO to pick up the carcass, which they again charged him for. He moved shortly thereafter.
Sometimes people are too stupid to take a hint.

[Wicked Witch]

That worked out really well for you, and that is a smart ACO.
I had a neighbor that used to go away on weekends and leave his German Shepard roam the neighborhood till he got back. He was threatening to the neighborhood kids, and several of us parents got together and started calling the ACO every weekend he was away and the dog was running. After several weeks of that, they kept the dog and wouldn't give it back until he had a 8' high fence installed around his whole back yard, and they charged him board while he was waiting. Well, wouldn't you know, he got the dog back and two weeks later, went away again, and let the dog run, he came into my yard bit my youngest boy, and I shot him dead in my backyard, then called the ACO to pick up the carcass, which they again charged him for. He moved shortly thereafter.
Sometimes people are too stupid to take a hint.

Thanks! I know I'm blessed with our local ACO. The one the last place we lived wouldn't come out no matter how many times who called. This one's a great guy who really loves animals and does his best for them- to the point of offering free training, tips and tricks to puppy owners on his own time whenever he can. His wife is very philosophical about it. He also had some new ideas we hadn't run across before for our Savannah. :)

I love shepherds, I would have hated to be you that day, but I would have shot the dog myself in your situation. I'm just not sure I would have been as patient about it as you were. Knowing me, I would have found an excuse to shoot it before it got near one of my kids. That's the one thing I won't tolerate, man or beast threatening or harassing my kids. Mother's love or something. <shrug> If the LEOs won't get involved fast enough, I've been known to take matters into my own hands as soon as I'm sure I'm on the right side of the law (and tweak the line when necessary). :)

If you can't pour some chlorine in the gene pool, hopefully you can pour some in the neighborhood.

[momma_to_seven_chi]

Thanks! I know I'm blessed with our local ACO. The one the last place we lived wouldn't come out no matter how many times who called.

That's what it is like here. It works better if you call the police and they call in AC rather than calling AC directly.

[nhlivefreeordie]

I would have hated to be you that day, but I would have shot the dog myself in your situation.

Even with my son bleeding, I still felt bad for the dog, he really didn't know any better, he was never trained, it is probably a good thing the guy wasn't home, I might be in jail still. I had cooled down by the time he rolled in Sunday night, he made a few threats, which I told him he was welcomed to try, and we never really talked after that. It still sucks the dog had to die, but at that point I was in full protection mode.
Our guys here are really good too, even the Game Wardens are reasonable here.

[Deep South]

I am adamantly against BSL...in any form.

First of all, it is one more example of the government overstepping its bounds and stomping on our rights.

Second of all, this measure is actually no real solution to the problem, the root of the problem.

I am glad it didn't pass in Montana. Similar legislation has sadly, passed in other areas.

Also, no mistake about it...legislation like this always leads to more legislation and more restrictions in the future.

[Thumper]

This is my first post here so I thought I'd jump in with both feet. I hope not to offend, but I think something must be said concerning the nature of this discussion and private property.

This particular subject is obviously full of emotion and very strong reaction. But, I think it is prudent to consider this is the same argument that brought us the National Firearms Act (1934) and the Gun Control Act (1968). The NFA sought to eliminate the Second Amendment to the US Constitution by imposing on firearms owners exactly what is being discussed about applying to certain dog owners. The GCA was the emotionally driven result of the murder of JFK. That one gave us the offensive pre-purchase form and latter, background checks. Please also not that the GCA was an almost exact transliteration of a NAZI German gun-control law (frighting aspect to have such in the US law code.)

All of this was sold as a way to control criminal mis-use of certain types of firearms and all other firearms in general and thereby provide a measure of safety. Neither did anything except put our money in the coffers of the Federal Government and various other state agencies. It also resulted in at least two families being murdered by agents of our own government. Many otherwise law abiding and productive citizens have been place for extremely long (20+ years) in Federal prisons for minor technical violations of an extra-leagal bureaucratic agencies made-up (not a part of any law) interpretations of the NFA and GCA.

All this to say... the parallels between the the animate dogs vs. the inanimate firearms is scary and would set up a precedent for further intrusion into other aspects of property ownership. Lest it be forgotten, the US Declaration of Independence was based upon the Virgina Declaration of Rights which said:

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
When we start denying people property for based upon a broad generalization (that something is "bad", "evil", or "dangerous") we are falling for the worst sort of Animism and Totemism and this anti-American at its core.

[annabella1]

okay so this is to combat dog fighting, well next you'll have to register all your chickens to prevent cock fighting. This Sounds a little bit too much to me