FOX16 Community

Lonoke's pit bull ban goes into effect today.  Do you think pit bulls should be banned?

leave your thought and comments here:

New to the site? Registering is free and easy--just click on the sign in link at the top of this page. Once you've joined, you can take part in all the forums we post here at on FOX16.com!

-Amy

I THINK THIS IS SO REDICULOUS ANIMALS ARE ONLY WHAT PEOPLE MAKE OF THEM...SO IN OTHER WORDS PEOPLE SHOULD BE BANNED...

No I don't think pit  bulls should be  banned.  It's not necessarily  the dog  that is in the wrong.  I think that the owners that fight  the pit bulls should  be banned from the  county if  anything.  Any dog breed can fight, the  pit  bull is just stereotyped into  being the fighting dog.  It's not  really  fair to good dog owners and good dogs to ban  them from the county.

 

no,they shouldnt be banned.ive had pit bulls and half pits for 20 years and wouldnt have any other breed.they are more loyal and affectionate than any other dogs ive had, and ive had a dog all my life.the dogs wont fight unless they are put into a position where they have to.the OWNERS should be fined,jailed,and their dogs removed or destroyed if they are fighting them.its not the dogs fault.they have to be raised right like any other dog (or a child)and are a product of the environment they are raised in.my dog wouldnt let any stranger in the house she thinks would harm me,and isnt that what dogs are supposed to do...protect their owners and their homes? i would move if they tried to ban my dog too. 

This is one of those situations that you can find yourself torn.  I believe that dogs of any kind are what their owners make them.  The problem with pit bulls is that when they do attack the results are terrible and often deadly.  I have four childen and I admitt that I find myself nervous when a pit bull is around.  My neighbor has one and I hate the fact that it is able to roam the neighborhood.  I don't want to have to worry about my children's safety when they are out playing in their own back yard.  I believe that if you are going to own a pit bull that you should be even more careful then you would with any other dog because of their reputations.  If there was some way that leash laws could be inforced in or out of city limits then I think people should be able to own what ever breed of dog they want.  As owners of animals you have the responsibility to make sure that you put people safety first.  What is sad is that people fight these poor innocent animals.  If you were trained to fight to kill by people beating you and mistreating you how friendly would you be?

There comes a time that law makers have to decide if it is worth the risk to let people continue to own these animals.  I am glad that I am not the one who has to make this decision because I don't know what I would do.

 

YES I DO THINK THEY SHOULD BE BANNED NOT ONLY IN LONOKE BUT IN LITTLE

ROCK ALSO.  I AM A HOME OWNER AND A DOG LOVER AND I HAVE HAD

NUMEROUS PROBLEMS WITH PITT BULLS JUMPING MY FENCE AND BRUTALY

ATTACKING MY DOG.  I ALSO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH PEOPLE WALKING THEIR

PIT BULLS AND LETTING THEM OFF THE CHAINS TO RUN UP TO MY FENCE JUST

TO PROVOKE MY DOG.  UNLESS SOMEONE CAN REGULATE WHO OWNS THEM

AND HOW THEY ARE RAISED THEY SOULD BE BANNED,

 

      CONCERNED IN LITTLE ROCK

No, pit bulls should not be banned.  The fact that this question is being asked is ridiculous in my opinion.  Banning pit bulls is discrimination.  Banning pit bulls would make them extinct.  A Pit Bull, just like any other breed of dog, will behave as it's owner allows it to behave.  My advice to anyone feeling torn between banning or not banning, is to research thoroughly.  Pit bulls are NOT vicious dogs.  Bad pit bulls are the result of bad owners, just like ANY OTHER DOG.  Pit bulls are EXTREMELY loving and gentle when raised in the right environment.  Punish the deed, not the breed.

NO!!! pit bulls should not be banned the way i see it is dont punish the dog punish the owners that is the owners that dont raise there dog right i have been around pits for many many years and i have raised my kid up with a pits and not once have any of them hurt my kid they are just big babys like any other dog. i think if they are going to ban pits they need to ban others its not just the pits its all kinds it just all on the way they are raised.

 

Pit Bulls should NOT be banned. I myself am a proud owner of a pitbull if there are people illegally fighting these dogs in their town than it should be those people that are punished it sounds like the city officials are to lazy to get up and make a stand on crime in their city but yet put their incompentcy into a law that punishes an animal. How do you punish an animal?   

I am writing this letter in regards to your current issue of breed specific legislation (BSL), to which I am strongly opposed.

The American Veterinary Medical Association, the New York State Veterinary Medical Society, California Veterinary Medical Association, Washington State Veterinary Medical Association, Colorado Veterinary Medical Association and the National Animal Control Association all strongly oppose breed specific legislation.

The AVMA states: “Legislation should be directed at fostering safety and protection of the general public from all animals classified as dangerous and undesirable.”

The NYSVMS states: “We encourage governmental authorities to provide adequate funding of animal control agencies to support their efforts to guarantee the public’s safety and well being.

As veterinary medical professionals, we believe that no one particular breed of dog should be discriminated against because, given a responsible owner, the vast majority of dogs are a benefit to mankind.”

The CVMA states: “The California Veterinary Medical Association strongly supports and encourages responsible pet ownership and the enforcement of existing animal control ordinances. We believe that this would prevent most, if not all of the dog attacks, as many of them were the result of owner negligence or actually encouragement of aggressive behavior.”

The WSVMA states: “It is the position of the WSVMA to support strong animal control legislation. This legislation should address the main issue – the responsibility of the dog owner to be sure that his/her dog is not a hazard to the public. A dog should be defined as dangerous by its actions and not by it’s parentage.”

The National Animal Control Association has developed the following policy in regards to dangerous/vicious animals: “Dangerous and/or vicious animals should be labeled as such as a result of their actions or behavior and not because of their breed.”

I think a common link can be seen here. Both veterinary medical professionals and animal control professionals feel that legislation which focuses on a specific breed of dog is detrimental to solving the true problem, which lies in the hands of irresponsible dog owners.

Breed Specific Legislation has been fought in court and in the case of Holder v. City of Hollywood “The Broward County Court found for the challengers and struck down the ordinance as an unconstitutional infringement of the pit bull dog owners’ fourteenth amendment rights. The court found it impossible to identify the breed of an unregistered dog. Because the ordinance only applied to the owners of an American Pit bull, Pit Bull Terrier or Staffordshire terrier the court found notice problems for the citizens and enforcement problems for the police.” Credit: Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 53, 1984 pgs 1067-1081.

Please take into consideration the option of stronger dangerous dog laws. There are many states and counties throughout the US who keep their citizens safe through laws that do not describe breed as a defining trait of a dangerous dog.

Botetourt County Virginia has such legislation. They define a dangerous dog as:

Any dog which (1) causes a wound to any person without provocation on public or private property; (2) while off the property of it’s owner, has killed or injured a domestic animal other than another dog; (3) attacks any person; or (4) has been declared dangerous by a General District Court of Circuit Court of this Commonwealth.

They define a vicious dog as:

Any dog which (1) kills a person; (2) inflicts serious wounds to a person, including multiple bites, or serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious impairment of any bodily function; (3) continues to exhibit the behavior which resulted in a previous finding by a court that it is a dangerous dog provided that it’s owner has been given notice of that finding; or (4) which has been found vicious by a General District Court or Circuit Court of this Commonwealth.

They add that (d) No dog shall be found to be a dangerous dog or a vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed.

Tacoma, Washington also has non-breed specific dangerous dog legislation. Their definition of a potentially dangerous dog is as such:

1.   Unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or a domestic animal, either on public or private property; or
2.   Unprovoked, chases or approaches a person or domestic animal upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public of private property in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack; or
3.   In known to have a propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked or to cause injury or otherwise to threaten the safety of humans or domestic animals on any public or private property.


At this time I would like to bring to your attention a study done in De Kalb County, Georgia. After a pit bull attack in the County, (which is within the Atlanta Metro) the Commissioners allowed a study group to investigate the matter and make appropriate recommendations.

Through their study, they learned that “leash laws, when enforced, do work. In De Kalb County, while the resident population grew a full twenty-four percent from 1975 to 1986, the reported dog bite incidents actually declined by a whopping fifty-four percent (54%), from 1,021 reported dog bites in 1975, to 472 bites in 1986. This decline in reported bites has been steady over the decade, with 615 reported in 1980 and 573 in 1983.

Only 315 dogs (using the 1986 figures), out of over 100,000 dogs in De Kalb County, bit members of the general public. This fractional 3/10ths of one percent figure clearly indicates that leash laws can be made to work and that there are many other factors, such as bicycles, skateboards, boats, pools, automobiles, cigarette smoking, and drugs, etc. that present a far greater threat to children, and the general public, than do dogs.”

In their summary, they state:

“Developing laws and ordinances which do not violate the constitutional rights of responsible dog-owning citizens seems to work best when the focus of attention is on the irresponsible owner, and when the text and language of the law, ordinance or statute are clear, concise, reasonable and brief. Long and complicated laws are difficult to enforce and comply with and have the tendency to control and regulate too much.”


In closing, my position stands that citizens should be kept safe from all dangerous dogs, and that, Breed Specific Legislation not only leads to a false sense of security, but fails to address the true problem. The true problem lies with irresponsible owners who fail to be held accountable for the actions of their pets. It is common for a dangerous dog to display aggressive and threatening behavior before attacking. If these dogs can be caught early, their owners can be forced to take responsible actions to avoid an attack. Avoiding an attack is the optimal result, and enforcing existing laws or creating stronger laws against any and all dangerous dogs can accomplish this.

    Yes, I think they should be banned.  My vetrinarian tells me Pits are wired differently than most dogs in that when they are triggered to attack they won't give up.  What will trigger an attack?  It could be the owners teaching, a response to what it percieves its owner being threatened, or perhaps it thinks a person is getting its food, but whatever the trigger a Pit Bull is so strong that older people, young children, and a lot of grown ups can fall prey to their charge.  I have been attacked by a Pit Bull and Had I not had a spray deterrent to keep it at bay until the owners could bring it under control I would have been in a very bad situation.  I was walking through a city park and the owners did not have the dog on a leash...I did nothing to threaten it, or the owners, and luckily did not have my grandchildren with me.  Who can tell which Pits are prone to attack...I'm sure there are some docile ones, but who can read their mind and at what point does instinct trigger the attack? 

NO ABSOLUTELY NOT.. Pit Bulls should Not be banned. Banning one breed is not the answer. Dogs are only what you make them. Raise a mean dog and it will be mean. Raise a good dog and it will be good. I own Pitbulls and Chihuahuas both. I have never had any problem with any of them. But of course, I love my pets and I dont leave them on chains all day and I dont fight them. If you want to correct the problem then there should be a law in effect for all breeds not just pits. And enforce the laws that we already have for all dogs. Start writing tickets for those that let their dogs run wild. You shouldnt have the right to take someones pet away from them just because your afraid of its breed. Learn more about the different kinds of breeds and get a better understanding of them all. Dogs should be evaluated by each individual one not breed.

NO!!!! i'm sorry i really think its how an animal is raised.. yeah sure a pitmay have mean tendencies but so does a german shepard and please watch out for all those ankle bitters!!!! i have two full blooded pits one is 5 yrs old we got her with our first daughter who just turned 6  and the other is almost 5 months old and she belongs tom my 9month old daughter!! both dogs play very nicly with the girls and trust me  your not gonna go near my girls unless me or my husband are there! u may think thats wrong but i don't ....i have a german shepard that is meaner than the pits  so where's their ban???i beleive that the owners who fight the dog and mistreat it by not  feeding it ,giving it gunpowder and stuff should get in trouble not the poor dog!!!!!!! i myself lived in nlr and moved when the ban went into affect  because i felt as though i shouldn't have to get rid of my dog  or have her tattoed!! thats wrong  i'm sorry for all the ppl who've been attaked by a dog  but think about it   ~~~it could also be one of those little ankle bitters   now i'm scared of those!

to the person who wrote about a pit attacking for some1 taking its food away?   my pit snowball will stop eating if someone walks in the room and i made sure that your able to reach down and take her food away ! i did that 4 my girls because i didn't want them to walk up and take some food and the dog snap! i'm sorry i disagree with you. i beleive its all  in how u raise them and you can't convince me otherwise!! also most pit owner do take in consideration that they do have a temper and they do make "distemperment shots"

Pit bulls should not be banned. It's DISCRIMATING against a certain breed. Laws should be for any animal who kills or hurts someone. Owners are responsible and when they're not, they should be punished. I've had 2 pits with no problems, one for 12 years & the other for 9 years. They were like family, never chained, lived inside, had a fenced in yard, loved to be walked & ride in our car. Our vet loved them too as did everyone in her office. Police the dogfights & stop them. Pits are gentle & affectionate. Other laws can be more effective. LOOK AT OTHER STATES WITH BETTER LAWS