On 10/31/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm in a debate of sorts on a newspaper board about breed specific > legislation. For the uninitiated, breed specific legislation is anylaw > that restricts or prohibits the ownership, breeding etc of dogs based > soley on breed, it's usually aimed at the pitbull breeds, but can > sometimes include German Shepard Dogs, Rottweilers, Huskies and Great > Danes. It's also known as "Dangerous Dog" legislation
Those newspaper boards are tough because they have a small cross section of Americans, which basically means a bunch of effin' morons. What I've tried to present is the stance that > > 1) the pitbull breeds where originally bred to guard, not fight "guarding" vs. "fighting" doesn't necessarily matter, as both mean biting. Who's to say when a dog thinks it's guarding? Proper training. 2) a properly trained, and cared for pitbull breed, is as trustworthy and > loving as any other terrier Yep. 3) Statistically pitbull breeds are less likely to bite than Cocker > Spaniels, Labs or even Chihuahuas I've never bought this. Golden retrievers bite more people than any other breed, because they are the most popular. Are GR's dangerous? Course' not. You would need a number that takes population numbers into account. But i wouldn't put any credence into these numbers anyway. I don't think they would be statistically significant, nor could they account for the number of variables that go into the results. 4) breed specific legislation does nothing to solve the problem of dog > attacks, because the responsibility for the dog and it's training or lack > thereof falls on the owner not the breed. Here's the problem. Breed specific legislation will lower the number of bites. Why? Because there are fewer dogs. Plain and simple. The breed may not have mattered at all, but the proponents will say "see, it worked. Bites are down, so Breed X must have been the dangerous breed." Nope. You could have accomplished the same thing by outlawing Spaniels or Golden Retrievers. What I've found on this particular board is people who refuse to read/see > the facts and refuse to present anything to back up their opposing > viewpoints. See my first point. Scott A. Stewart > REAC/PASS-IT > (202)-475-8875 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:218830 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
