Lawsuit Challenges Pit Bull Bans

Mrs Behavin

Mrs Behavin

Well-Known Member
2 2 2 2 1
15 Year Club Well Known
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]
For anyone who's seen the inhumanity of dogfighting, an activity for which these dogs are famous -- or anyone who's been attacked by a pit bull -- a pit bull ban makes sense.
Click to expand...
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]But on Sunday we met Casper and Biscuit, two examples of the breed that the people behind a recent lawsuit challenging the bans say could change anyone's mind. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]It may be too late to change the reputation of the pit bull in the minds of many -- and pictures like the ones that emerged from a Saline County dogfighting raid on Thursday don't help.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]But there is another side to the story.[/FONT]


[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"It's a nationwide fight against breed specific bans which we regard as unconstitutional," said Roger Schnyer.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Schnyer, the Director of Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs (ROADS), is heading up a lawsuit against four Arkansas cities with pit bull bans -- in hopes that dog owners like Richard Venable, and dogs like Casper and Biscuit, an American Bull Terrier, and a Pit Bull, respectively, can keep on being a family.[/FONT]


[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"They're just big ol' babies," Venable said.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The lawsuit, filed against Lonoke, North Little Rock, Jacksonville and Beebe, claims that breed specific bans allow local governments to seize and euthanize personal property without due process.[/FONT]


[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"If a dog is proven to be a vicious dog, I'll be all for it," Schnyer said. "But we can't have someone saying that just because it's a German Sheperd, or a Great Dane, or a Doberman, that is automatically is a vicious dog."[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Schnyer is hoping a ruling from a federal judge could put a stop the spread of pit bull across Arkansas bans for good.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]But as for curing a fear of the breed, Richard Venable says just come visit Casper and Biscuit.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"Get your hand down in front of them, let them sniff it -- and then get in the yard and play with 'em," Venable said.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Schnyer says another reason breed specific laws are problematic is that animal control agents or even veterinarians are qualified to tell similar looking breeds from one another.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]He said veterinarians aren't required to spend anytime studying breed identification to earn their degrees.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]ArkansasMatters.com - Lawsuit Challenges Pit Bull Bans[/FONT]
 
Pudding Time said:
Dog bans are silly. It's how the dog is raised, not the breed itself. I can raise a Labrador to be viscous as hell.
Click to expand...

Genetics have been proven to have an adverse affect though. IT's true that even the most mild of breeds have their occasional bad apples, some of the breeds tend to be very vicious by nature...usually a territorial thing. The more territorial a breed is, the more likely it is to attack if it feels it's territory is being encroached upon.

Pits, Dobies, German Shepards are all fairly territorial dogs...and usually they don't like packs, but almost view them as an ends to a means. Other dogs, ie. the retrievers and hounds, love being in packs and actually thrive with the "more the merrier" attitude.
 
I understand that but you can't ban an entire breed because some of the breed have been viscous.

Most people that obtain a Pit Bull are not exactly good dog owners, and mistreat their dogs. I've seen a Corgi mistreated and would attack anything that came near it, even the owner. And I also know owners of Pit bulls and Presa Canarios that have some of the most lovable dogs I've ever met.

They just need to be hard on owners if an investigation of a dog attack proves mistreatment of the dog. Else if the investigation proves that it was just the dog that flipped-out of unknown reasons, then have the dog put down and move on. There's no need to ban an entire breed because of some (as you put it) "bad apples"..
 
Pudding Time said:
I understand that but you can't ban an entire breed because some of the breed have been viscous.

Most people that obtain a Pit Bull are not exactly good dog owners, and mistreat their dogs. I've seen a Corgi mistreated and would attack anything that came near it, even the owner. And I also know owners of Pit bulls and Presa Canarios that have some of the most lovable dogs I've ever met.

They just need to be hard on owners if an investigation of a dog attack proves mistreatment of the dog. Else if the investigation proves that it was just the dog that flipped-out of unknown reasons, then have the dog put down and move on. There's no need to ban an entire breed because of some (as you put it) "bad apples"..
Click to expand...

I think they're just working on numbers...they want to reduce the number of dog-attacks...ok, which breeds are doing the most attacking? So, then some paper-pusher goes down the list, tallies up the numbers and presents them.

I'm not saying yay or nay to this, I'm just saying the politicians are reacting to the general public. That's how they get into office. If the majority want the breed banned from within city limits, then it's the voters' choice...sad but true.

Now, if you can get the Supreme Court to actually come in from the golf course and rule on the constitutionality, well, best of luck to you on that...
 
They need to stop blaming the dogs and blame the owner of the dog.

If the laws need to be changed, then change it to hold the owner of the dog responsible if it attacks someone else. Make VERY stiff penalties for anyone caught training a dog for fighting.

If your dog attacks someone, you go to jail.
If you train you dog for fighting, you go to jail.

That way, if you get a pit bull or large breed dog, you will legally be responsible for that dog.


This country if filled with a bunch of whiney cry babies that sue at the drop of a hat, but don't ever want to take responsibility for their own actions. Drives me nuts I tell ya.
 
I here ya.

They are simply looking for a easy solution. One that doesn't require much thinking nor planning. "Let's just write a paragraph outlawing the breed. Problem solved."
 
RecklessTim said:
They need to stop blaming the dogs and blame the owner of the dog.

If the laws need to be changed, then change it to hold the owner of the dog responsible if it attacks someone else. Make VERY stiff penalties for anyone caught training a dog for fighting.

If your dog attacks someone, you go to jail.
If you train you dog for fighting, you go to jail.

That way, if you get a pit bull or large breed dog, you will legally be responsible for that dog.


This country if filled with a bunch of whiney cry babies that sue at the drop of a hat, but don't ever want to take responsibility for their own actions. Drives me nuts I tell ya.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely. Except for one aspect. If the dog attack isn't a result from the owners actions, meaning the owner has done nothing wrong, and has treated the dog with love and respect. In this situation the blame needs to fall sqaurely on the dog itself, and the case should be closed after the dog is put down.
 
hubersrj said:
Pits, Dobies, German Shepards are all fairly territorial dogs...and usually they don't like packs, but almost view them as an ends to a means. Other dogs, ie. the retrievers and hounds, love being in packs and actually thrive with the "more the merrier" attitude.
Click to expand...
Hope they don't try to ban German Shepherds because that is what we are getting when we move into our house.
 
Pudding Time said:
I agree with you completely. Except for one aspect. If the dog attack isn't a result from the owners actions, meaning the owner has done nothing wrong, and has treated the dog with love and respect. In this situation the blame needs to fall sqaurely on the dog itself, and the case should be closed after the dog is put down.
Click to expand...

The fact that the owner took the responsibility of owning a dog capable of harm makes him responsible. This is why I said that people don't ever want to take responsibility for their own actions.
If you know what a large breed is capable of before buying it, then you must be willing to take responsibility for it... even if you did everything to raise it right.
 
RecklessTim said:
The fact that the owner took the responsibility of owning a dog capable of harm makes him responsible. This is why I said that people don't ever want to take responsibility for their own actions.
If you know what a large breed is capable of before buying it, then you must be willing to take responsibility for it... even if you did everything to raise it right.
Click to expand...

All breeds are capable of harm.
 
Back
Top