My Photo

Categories

follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Another great TV commercial featuring shelter pets | Main | Top 5+1 for February, 2012 »

March 03, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451f90869e20168e84ccc3a970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Miami Dade BSL Repeal struggling - how you can help, & why the lawmakers should force them to repeal the law:

Comments

Laura Prowicz

I am firmly convinced that only by proving how BSL violates our human and civil rights to due process, and the sanctity of our property will we win these battles.

You have to fight the battle on the battlefield where the enemy is waiting for you. it is folly to try to bring the enemy to you.

cantlietoadog

>>This "controlled breeding" thing is a loaded statement, but first all, let's note that only a very small percentage of dogs, of any breed, in this country are bred through controlled breeding programs with one of the breed clubs. Pit bulls are no exception. While there are certainly people who do controlled breeding with all breeds of dogs, with pit bulls, there is every reason to believe that at least as many (or more) are breeding them for their many positive traits vs trying maximize negative ones<<

Excuse me, but not sure what you're trying to say here. It sounds like you're saying those who do controlled breeding through breed clubs are breeding for negative traits. If so that is patently untrue and a very unfair and unwise place to go for someone who wants support for this bill.

Brent

Sorry - -I see how you read it that way and that is not how I intended it to read.

I was noting that the majority of dogs are not bred in controlled environments.

Most dogs that are bred in controlled environments are being bred for positive traits, not negative ones.

But also acknowledging that there are some who are doing controlled breeding (not necessarily as a part of breed clubs) that are breeding for negative traits. I do not believe that this makes up a large percentage of dogs or control-bred dogs. Definitely not now, and likely not in 1989 either.

Sorry for any confusion my wording may have caused.

EmilyS

the problem with the UKC version of the APBT history is that there is little/no contemporaneous documentation (either written or photographic) for it. Not to mention the irony that the UKC itself was created specifically to standardize the APBT... and the rules for dogfighting. Maybe they should go back into their own archives?

We don't need to dissemble about the origin of our breed to defend it. Of course, almost no APBTs have been breed for dogfighting for 50-80 years and even fewer are today. I agree that the vast majority of dogs being called "pit bulls" have not been purposefully bred for anything. And UKC APBTs and AKC ASTs are bred for their positive attributes, not for "aggression" (as if anyone understands or agrees what that word means)

Of course, all those whereas clauses are stupid.

Felipe Hemming

Since April of 2009 a Administrative Judge ruled the ordinance unenforceable, making it unlawful for DCAC to use the ordinance in any way. I had officials at my door more then I would like to say, I told them after the ruling I would have them charged with harassment if they bothered me again. Never saw them again. Stand up for your rights.

Brent

Emily, I probably could have gone 100 different ways on that statement. There are a lot of different "versions" of the history of American Pit Bull Terriers, but none (well, outside of Miami's) have them originally bred for dog fighting and certainly never for the purpose of "fighting" animals other than dogs (which, I'm trying to envision). And yeah, while some of the dogs were, and are still, bred for the purpose of fighting, it's a tiny percent of the dogs of this breed, and an even more tiny percent of the dogs that are included in the broad definition covered in the ordinance. As you note, there is no need to defend the history of the dogs, I was just pointing out that even THAT is pretty horribly wrong -- as was the rest of the rationale.

kmk

Brent wrote, "The "fact" behind this statement appears to be based on a statement from Randall Lockwood back in 1987 - -a statement that he has since recinded".

Lockwood is STILL going to Hell.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment