Pitbulls banned in Montana! (Whitefish, Shepherd: homeowners insurance, mortgage, home)

[AQHA]

Originally Posted by Kristynwy

Thank you to those of you who have kept your posts civil and informative.... However I have had to delete a couple harsh posts, please refrain from personal attacks....

I dare say the ones who made the personal attacks were owners of pitbulls, cuz everyone knows most pitbull owners are drug dealing thugs... why else would anyone own one???

[I am joking, just gotta make that clear ]

[wawagners]

I think a lot of people who own dogs (in general) shouldn't own them. I see a lot of stupid people who own dogs that bite and they are either afraid of them or think it's funny. Yes, I have had people giggle when their dog tried to bite me. It's a sad fact that most dogs are smarter then people. Oh and then I get the ones that don't know what a MATT is when their dog is matted solid. This is a hard problem to solve. Like another person wrote if they ban pit bulls then they are just going to try to ban another breed and on and on. I just don't think every pit bull owner should be punished for bad pit bull owners. Thats just like a lot of groomers won't take chows at all. We have lots of chows that come in b/c we are the only ones around who will even try them. I've had some try to eat my face off but b/c of those perticular dogs I'm not going to punish the good chows that need grooming and not do any of them. The same should go w/ pit bulls or any dog for that matter.

[wawagners]

Originally Posted by AQHA

I dare say the ones who made the personal attacks were owners of pitbulls, cuz everyone knows most pitbull owners are drug dealing thugs... why else would anyone own one???

[I am joking, just gotta make that clear ]

Hey now, I have been very nice. Even though you were just joking.

[TypicalCalifornian]

I think you underestimate the power of costing risk as an incentive to behavior and without government mandates. As an engineer you should appreciate this. When launching rockets bearing, for example, satellites, there is an insurance policy covering the owner of the satellite as well as the builder of the rockets. In the old days when a choice was between a Russian launch vehicle, and an American, the cost was cheaper for the Russian rocket, but the insurance was higher.

Ultimately in fact ANY rocket lost was a new expense on all launches, thus promoting a market pricing guaranteeing more safety.

Same with airlines. You can make a strong case the insurance company creates more airline safety than the FAA (inspectors) via all forms of audits and oversites that is ultimately cheapr than government controls.

Any inherently dangerous act is in one way or another a societal cost. These costs should be borne in so far as is possible by the "user" or "owner". it's not a call to government as much as a way to prevent government mandates that most of us despise yet creating responsible use.

Brighter minds than mine will be able to turn the costs and probabilities and mitigating forces (has the dog in question been through a professional training course e.g.,) into a cost that at least moves behavior in the right direction.

saying we hate government involvement, in the current climate at leasts results in a lot of "do something" by the government as mother types.

[AQHA]

Originally Posted by TypicalCalifornian

I think you underestimate the power of costing risk as an incentive to behavior and without government mandates. As an engineer you should appreciate this. When launching rockets bearing, for example, satellites, there is an insurance policy covering the owner of the satellite as well as the builder of the rockets. In the old days when a choice was between a Russian launch vehicle, and an American, the cost was cheaper for the Russian rocket, but the insurance was higher.

Ultimately in fact ANY rocket lost was a new expense on all launches, thus promoting a market pricing guaranteeing more safety.

Same with airlines. You can make a strong case the insurance company creates more airline safety than the FAA (inspectors) via all forms of audits and oversites that is ultimately cheapr than government controls.

Any inherently dangerous act is in one way or another a societal cost. These costs should be borne in so far as is possible by the "user" or "owner". it's not a call to government as much as a way to prevent government mandates that most of us despise yet creating responsible use.

Brighter minds than mine will be able to turn the costs and probabilities and mitigating forces (has the dog in question been through a professional training course e.g.,) into a cost that at least moves behavior in the right direction.

saying we hate government involvement, in the current climate at leasts results in a lot of "do something" by the government as mother types.

Ok... I read your post twice and it still looks like chinese to me. I don't have a clue what you just said. We're talking about dogs and you bring up the space race and something about mitigating forces... You folks from California speak a different language!

[TypicalCalifornian]

LOL I'm sorry for the far afield metaphor. basically I'm saying insurance is a preferable mechanism to creating safety and safe behavior than government.

So, in yet another case, if government says "you must wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle", many of us will say BS, others will say its safer, yet others will say "but we taxpayers pay for his life support...."

Another freer approach says...have motorcycle insurance that makes you wear a helmet to be covered for "X $", and a policy for "5x$" to not wear a helmet.

In that case all parties are served. ya want to be free? pay. ya want to have some controls, pay less. government does not mandate, but does enforce.

Hope that was at least Nevada sounding lol.

[MontanaBabyD]

To ANYONE concerned this is the PUBLIC contact info for Rep. Robyn Driscoll...the person proposing this RIDICULOUS bill to kill our four legged FAMILY members.

Please feel free to express how you feel about this bill thru email, phone, snail mail...whatever. Just tell her how you REALLY FEEL!!

ROBYN DRISCOLL (D) HD 51
404 HOULE DR
BILLINGS, MT 59102-4861
Home: (406)534-4874
rdriscoll@peoplepc.com

[jenben777]

Originally Posted by wawagners

I think a lot of people who own dogs (in general) shouldn't own them. I see a lot of stupid people who own dogs that bite and they are either afraid of them or think it's funny. Yes, I have had people giggle when their dog tried to bite me. It's a sad fact that most dogs are smarter then people. Oh and then I get the ones that don't know what a MATT is when their dog is matted solid. This is a hard problem to solve. Like another person wrote if they ban pit bulls then they are just going to try to ban another breed and on and on. I just don't think every pit bull owner should be punished for bad pit bull owners. Thats just like a lot of groomers won't take chows at all. We have lots of chows that come in b/c we are the only ones around who will even try them. I've had some try to eat my face off but b/c of those perticular dogs I'm not going to punish the good chows that need grooming and not do any of them. The same should go w/ pit bulls or any dog for that matter.

THANK YOU its nice to know someone is sensible

[Gman2007]

Originally Posted by jenben777

oh there ya go...an anti pit bull website is where your getting this information...actually if you really do the research labradores are the number one dog that bites humans.

But, what is the number one dog that KILLS or maims humans?

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Atta...%20Clifton.pdf

[bigtrees]

Originally Posted by MontanaBabyD

To ANYONE concerned this is the PUBLIC contact info for Rep. Robyn Driscoll...the person proposing this RIDICULOUS bill to kill our four legged FAMILY members.

Please feel free to express how you feel about this bill thru email, phone, snail mail...whatever. Just tell her how you REALLY FEEL!!

ROBYN DRISCOLL (D) HD 51
404 HOULE DR
BILLINGS, MT 59102-4861
Home: (406)534-4874
rdriscoll@peoplepc.com

You might want to read the law again. It doesn't say anything about killing any existing dogs in the state (as long as they have been registered). There is a specific grandfather clause that excludes those animals.

The law basically prevents new pit bull dogs from being brought into the state or being kept in Montana. So your existing dogs are safe.