San Bernardino County cracking down on pit bull owners

Full story: San Bernardino County Sun

In light of the ongoing saga of fatal and nonfatal pit bull maulings, many involving children, a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance is being proposed for all unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of33
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Good luck

San Bernardino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jun 9, 2010
 
Good luck on enforcing this law. Most pit owners aren't the most responsible of people...I'm not saying ALL, but most...
My Turn

Colton, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jun 9, 2010
 
Illegal Pervert wrote:
This is like the 40oz beer ord, it's all show and no action.
I disagree. There will be action once both these ordinances have been implemented because community residents are fed up with irresponsible dog owners and crime associated with alcohol use.
Animal Lover

Redlands, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jun 9, 2010
 
I stronlgy agree with this ordinance. In fact, I'd strongly agree with an ordinance that requires ALL dogs to be spayed or neutered unless they are owned by a licensed breeder.

I have two rescued dogs. Both are spayed. One was attacked by a neighors' pit during a walk. Thanks to the help of someone driving by with a bat in his pickup, our dog survived and the pit ran off.

I hate that any dog has to be euthanized. I also hate that I see "puppies for sale" signs throughout Highland when I know every day the Devore shelter has to put to sleep good dogs who deserve good homes.
Betsy

Saint Albans, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jun 9, 2010
 
VERY good news. Thanks for showing some guts, San Bernardino!
Betsy

Saint Albans, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jun 9, 2010
 
By the way, it is true (as "Good Luck" writes) that most pit bull owners aren to the most responsible dog owners. That is why you need breed specific LAWS to control their actions. If they were all (or mostly) terrifically responsible (compare, say, portugese water dog breeders) they would police themselves and do the right thing just because it is the right thing. The POINT of passing a law is to give the government the power to force people who choose to be irresponsible to do the right thing, despite their disinclination to do it voluntarily.
wtf

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jun 9, 2010
 
put them all to sleep ~ the best pit bull is one made into dog food
Bobo

Victorville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jun 9, 2010
 
How about expanding the spay and neuter rule to include their owners.
Prove it

Rancho Cordova, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jun 9, 2010
 
I have dogs with known parentage--they are NOT even the slightest bit Pit or any other pit-type breed.

Yet I'm regularly asked if they are Pit or pit mixes. Answer is no. They're fixed, trained, and thoroughly valued as the loving companions they are.

Unless the animal control folks are willing to get sued to the hilt, and to pay for genetic testing of EVERY possible-pit-appearing-dog, this ordinance is worthless.

No, animal control can't tell any more than anyone else. They aren't magic, they aren't psychic, and oh, something else?

Almost EVERY DOG which attacks is automatically called a pit bull by the layperson. Were all these dogs attacking, or being euthanized, actually pit bulls, or just large-headed dogs?

Something the county should contemplate in depth before making such a plainly foolish ordinance part of their legal code. I know I'd sue for millions were my beloved mutts acted against simply for being mistaken as a 'bad breed'.
Betsy

Morgantown, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jun 9, 2010
 
"Sued to the hilt?" For what? Your dogs, Prove It, are already "fixed" so you are in compliance with the law even if they don't have any pit bull in them at all. You have NO DAMAGES, because (like every other remotely responsible dog owner) you have already spayed/neutered your mixed breed dogs.

My mixed breed dog is also spayed, of course, so even though nobody has ever mistaken her for a pit bull, I wouldn't worry if they did. I can prove she is spayed. And when I had an intact female do who I was (for a time, although I eventually decided against it) thinking of breeding, I could EASILY have proven she wasn't a pit bull by registration papers, title certificates, show win photos, health screen certificates from licensed veterinarians.

In short, if it doesn't look enough like some other breed to be easily identifiable as that other breed, why would it be intact in the first place? While you might have a pipedream of being able to sue "for millions," no court wouldn't agree with you re your damages for being forced to spay your mongrel. There are NO DAMAGES for being forced to spay/neuter a dog whose breeding value is zero. And the breeding value of a mixed breed dog who looks like a pit bull is less than zero.

“http://pitowner. blogspot.com”

Since: May 10

Antelope Valley, California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jun 9, 2010
 
Betsy wrote:
"Sued to the hilt?" For what? Your dogs, Prove It, are already "fixed" so you are in compliance with the law even if they don't have any pit bull in them at all. You have NO DAMAGES, because (like every other remotely responsible dog owner) you have already spayed/neutered your mixed breed dogs.
My mixed breed dog is also spayed, of course, so even though nobody has ever mistaken her for a pit bull, I wouldn't worry if they did. I can prove she is spayed. And when I had an intact female do who I was (for a time, although I eventually decided against it) thinking of breeding, I could EASILY have proven she wasn't a pit bull by registration papers, title certificates, show win photos, health screen certificates from licensed veterinarians.
In short, if it doesn't look enough like some other breed to be easily identifiable as that other breed, why would it be intact in the first place? While you might have a pipedream of being able to sue "for millions," no court wouldn't agree with you re your damages for being forced to spay your mongrel. There are NO DAMAGES for being forced to spay/neuter a dog whose breeding value is zero. And the breeding value of a mixed breed dog who looks like a pit bull is less than zero.
The reality is that people DO sue to stop mis-identified dogs from falling under breed-specific legislations.
Denver, Colorado has paid close to a million dollars (if not more than) defending lawsuits, and there are more in the wings.
This is a good law with the exception that it applies only to pit bulls and pit bull mixes.
How do you determine what a pit bull mix is? By looking at it? A pit bull-lab mix for instance can be classified as a pit bull mix or a lab mix.
So one will have to be altered while the other doesn't.
With all the dogs of all breeds and mixes in shelters, do we really need people next door breeding dogs?
Pass this law to include all dog breeds, and mixes, with the exception of licensed breeders. The average family pet does not need to be "intact".
Also add mandatory microchipping so that when an irresponsible owner does allow their dog to get loose and bite, they can be identified and taken care of accordingly.
Betsy

Morgantown, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jun 9, 2010
 
Denver, Colorado has a total ban on pit bulls not regulation of pit bull breeders. One of the reasons I am opposed to total bans is that it IS reaonable to sue to keep your dog if the dog is going to be seized and killed, otherwise (as in Denver). But suing to keep an intact dog intact if that dog isn't purebred and isn't breeding quality (and if it is breeding quality, it is EASY to prove it is) is ridiculous.

By the way, Denver is quite happy with its total ban, despite the fact that it periodically gets sued (the ban has always been upheld in court, of course).

Under the law I advocate (mandatory microchipping of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes, mandatory spay/neuter of all pit bulls and pit bull mixes except AKC and UKC-PR registered show dogs) ALL pit bull mixes (yes, the lab-pit mix as well as the pit-lab mix) would have to be spayed/neutered and microchipped. And it is okay for animal control (and hearing officers for the rare case where an owner appeals the breed designation) to be pretty loose about what a "pit mix" is, because even if they misidentify the occasional boxer mix as a pit mix, THAT dog should be spayed/microchipped too.

Everybody wins. Except irresponsible pit bull breeders.
Betsy

Morgantown, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jun 9, 2010
 
What is a "licensed breeder?" Most places don't license dog breeders. Most that do only require that they pay a fee to get a license. In short, it is an income generating law, not a quality control law.

And I don't want the government deciding who can breed which dogs in the breeds where responsible breeders are already good stewards. Why should we let bureaucrats decide which portuguese water dogs should be bred?
Lucifer

Oxnard, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jun 9, 2010
 
I'm looking for lots of dogs to open my new BBQ joint - part of the main menu! A little human revenge, Korean style!
Bitbulls Suck

San Bernardino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jun 9, 2010
 
Lucifer wrote:
I'm looking for lots of dogs to open my new BBQ joint - part of the main menu! A little human revenge, Korean style!
And you are an idiot !!!! It should include all breeds.
glass house

Brea, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jun 9, 2010
 
yeaaaaaa! can we fine them $100 a day?
Opt to adopt

San Bernardino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jun 9, 2010
 
What is the point of "breeders?" Why do people want so badly to have "pure bred" dogs? What benefit does it serve? My 3 mutts are just as good companions as some 3,000 dollar dog. And don't breeders sometimes ruin dogs because they are so busy trying to breed the perfect dog (or cat, for that matter) that genetic anomalies take place? For example, one of the reasons shelters are filled with blind Australian Shepherds is because breeders breed two dogs that aren't meant to be bred so that they could create a certain color dog. Who cares what color a dog is?!?! This is one of the first things that really pissed me off about Obama, elitist snob that he is...
About the article, I think it is great that owners will be required to spay/neuter their dogs. In fact, I think all dogs need to be spayed and neutered. We don't need more puppies created when there are thousands that die in shelters. I also see how this could be difficult to enforce. But I guess something needed to be done. We'll see how it turns out...
Rant over.:)
Betsy

Morgantown, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jun 10, 2010
 
Opt to Adopt,

Thanks for asking about the benefits of purebrededness. I am happy to explain it to you.

All purebred dogs do is preserve (in the most efficient way possible) the huge diversity of traits that enable dogs to fit so wonderfully into so many of our lives. Without people breeding intentionally to preserve traits such as tiny size, large size, herding ability, non-sheddingness, floppy ears, tracking ability, cop dog ability, etc., within a few generations ALL these traits are going to be lost.

YOU may be perfectly happy with the generic randombred dog that will be the only dog available if intentional breeding for these traits is eliminated, but many people won't. That dog will be a high energy, low trainability, medium sized brown or grey prick earred dog. On the plus side, he will probably be quite healthy genetically. On the minus side, he won't possess any of the extreme talents that purebred breeders have bred for over centuries. So if it YOUR child woh is lost in the woods, you proably wouldn't be quite so happy that there aren't any bloodhounds left.

The Obamas are a less extreme example of the benefits of purebrededness. They had to choose a breed that was non-shedding because one of their daughters (both of whom desperately wanted a dog) has serious allergies to dogs that shed. Without purebrededness, these girls would have had to grow up without a dog.

And "all dogs should be spayed/neutered" means that within fifteen or sixteen years, there are no more dogs. Is that REALLY what you want?

The solution isn't to stop intentional breeding of dogs. It is to stop intentional IRRESPONSIBLE breeding of dogs. Merle to merle (which you mention) breeding is a great example of that (and is easily avoidable by responsible aussie breeders) as is the breedings done by the VAST majority of pit bull breeders.

Understand now?
Opt to adopt

San Bernardino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jun 10, 2010
 
Betsy wrote:
Opt to Adopt,
Thanks for asking about the benefits of purebrededness. I am happy to explain it to you.
Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.:)
Betsy wrote:
All purebred dogs do is preserve (in the most efficient way possible) the huge diversity of traits that enable dogs to fit so wonderfully into so many of our lives. Without people breeding intentionally to preserve traits such as tiny size, large size, herding ability, non-sheddingness, floppy ears, tracking ability, cop dog ability, etc., within a few generations ALL these traits are going to be lost.
YOU may be perfectly happy with the generic randombred dog that will be the only dog available if intentional breeding for these traits is eliminated, but many people won't. That dog will be a high energy, low trainability, medium sized brown or grey prick earred dog.
I guess I am not picky about the dogs I choose to take in. I admit I do avoid getting the "cute, cuddly" dogs that people tend to be drawn to. This is because I know these dogs run the risk of never being adopted. The only thing I ask of my dog is that they are gentle and good with children. Their ears, floppy, sticking straight up, or not there at all, do not really matter to me. I suppose this is something a breeder might notice - it makes no difference to me. I will say that the 3 dogs I have, albeit mixes, are very intelligent dogs. Even if they weren't, I would love them the same.
Betsy wrote:
On the plus side, he will probably be quite healthy genetically. On the minus side, he won't possess any of the extreme talents that purebred breeders have bred for over centuries. So if it YOUR child woh is lost in the woods, you proably wouldn't be quite so happy that there aren't any bloodhounds left.
This is a good reason to me. Breeding dogs that are used for specific purposes (i.e. police dogs, Seeing Eye dogs, service dogs, etc.) is understandable enough.
Betsy wrote:
The Obamas are a less extreme example of the benefits of purebrededness. They had to choose a breed that was non-shedding because one of their daughters (both of whom desperately wanted a dog) has serious allergies to dogs that shed. Without purebrededness, these girls would have had to grow up without a dog.
Actually, they do have hypoallergenic dog breeds at shelters.
Betsy wrote:
And "all dogs should be spayed/neutered" means that within fifteen or sixteen years, there are no more dogs. Is that REALLY what you want?
The solution isn't to stop intentional breeding of dogs. It is to stop intentional IRRESPONSIBLE breeding of dogs. Merle to merle (which you mention) breeding is a great example of that (and is easily avoidable by responsible aussie breeders) as is the breedings done by the VAST majority of pit bull breeders.
Understand now?
Perhaps I should have been more specific. Surely, you don't think I meant making the entire species of dogs extinct? I was referring to the spaying/neutering of all household pets. I was in no way saying that breeders needed to be stopped AT ALL. I was merely inquiring as to what the point of breeding was, and now that you have provided an explanation, I think I have a general understanding. I still think Obama is a sheister though.:)
Betsy

Morgantown, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jun 10, 2010
 
Of course they currently have hypoallergenic dogs at the shelter. One of my shelter-adopted dogs is non-shedding. But that is because he was intentionally bred by somebody who bred a purebred to a purebred and therefore preserved that trait. Even the hypoallergenic mixed breeds (and there are some) at the shelter have purebreds in their very recent history. Do away with intentional breeding to preserve this trait (and the most efficient way to preserve it is to breed purebred to purebred), and you lose the trait of non-shedding very quickly because non-sheddingness does not crop up spontaneously in randombred, pariah dog types. Remember we aren't talking about the dogs available now (when many, if not most, dogs in the shelter had recent purebred ancestors). We are talking about the dogs that will be available after your vision of doing away intentional breeding of purebreds has been in effect for say, ten years (which is five generations of dogs).

And you may not be "picky" about the types of dogs you take in, but plenty of people are, for both good and bad reasons. One of my hobbies is competing in agility, so the best match for me is a sound, drivey dog with a strong retrieving drive. Could I live with a dog who had no wish to work in partnership with me? Sure, but it would be be less fun for both of us than the dogs I (carefully) chose.

We have already touched on intentional breeding to preserve working ability. What about intentional breeding to produce LOW drive dogs with no need to work? These dogs (most toy breeds for example) are absolutely great for many people. Many people who adore living with a toy poodle couldn't stand living with the kind of high drive, high energy, low trainability dog that randombred to randombred breeding produces in a very few generations.

And while you say you don't care what your dog looks like, being attractive is absolutely a huge genetic survival trait in a dog. The dogs adopted from the shelter first are the attractive ones or the cute ones (as you point out). Is this evidence of human shallowness? Probably, but since most people choose their spouse at least partly on looks, it is is probably unrealistic to think that they aren't going to choose their dog the same way.



Opt to adopt

San Bernardino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jun 10, 2010
 
Betsy wrote:
Of course they currently have hypoallergenic dogs at the shelter. One of my shelter-adopted dogs is non-shedding. But that is because he was intentionally bred by somebody who bred a purebred to a purebred and therefore preserved that trait. Even the hypoallergenic mixed breeds (and there are some) at the shelter have purebreds in their very recent history. Do away with intentional breeding to preserve this trait (and the most efficient way to preserve it is to breed purebred to purebred), and you lose the trait of non-shedding very quickly because non-sheddingness does not crop up spontaneously in randombred, pariah dog types. Remember we aren't talking about the dogs available now (when many, if not most, dogs in the shelter had recent purebred ancestors). We are talking about the dogs that will be available after your vision of doing away intentional breeding of purebreds has been in effect for say, ten years (which is five generations of dogs).
And you may not be "picky" about the types of dogs you take in, but plenty of people are, for both good and bad reasons. One of my hobbies is competing in agility, so the best match for me is a sound, drivey dog with a strong retrieving drive. Could I live with a dog who had no wish to work in partnership with me? Sure, but it would be be less fun for both of us than the dogs I (carefully) chose.
We have already touched on intentional breeding to preserve working ability. What about intentional breeding to produce LOW drive dogs with no need to work? These dogs (most toy breeds for example) are absolutely great for many people. Many people who adore living with a toy poodle couldn't stand living with the kind of high drive, high energy, low trainability dog that randombred to randombred breeding produces in a very few generations.
And while you say you don't care what your dog looks like, being attractive is absolutely a huge genetic survival trait in a dog. The dogs adopted from the shelter first are the attractive ones or the cute ones (as you point out). Is this evidence of human shallowness? Probably, but since most people choose their spouse at least partly on looks, it is is probably unrealistic to think that they aren't going to choose their dog the same way.
Originally, I did understand breeding to be something done to achieve a certain quality in a dog or cat for shallow reasons. I really can honestly say I have no "vision" of doing away with breeding - responsible breeding anyways. The "breeding" done to support puppy mills or the breeding that results in dogs being born blind or deaf, on the other hand, I most definitely oppose. I am not being snarky when I say that I really do understand the point of breeding now.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of33
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••

Apple Valley News Video

•••
•••

Apple Valley Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Apple Valley People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••