Pitbulls banned in Montana! (credit, live in, floors)

[TypicalCalifornian]

After we have banned pitbulls we just need to go about idntifying the next most dangerous dog breed and eliminate them. This morning there is worldwide news ex-president Chirac of France was bitten by his poodle-maltese so badly he was hospitalized. Poodles sound like a logical next step, if a powerful man like Chirac can be taken down by his 15 pound poodle, well I'm in fear of my fate....

This 'do something' mentality is not going to end. This is the type of intrusion that slippery slopes us into banning anything more dangerous than pitbulls. How are you going to argue for allowing something more dangerous when you've agreed with this?

Now I don't like pitbulls, and I don't like govenment intervention, but if a place like Montana can't make sensible accommodation to these issues, we have no chance in the rest of the country.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by bigtrees

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.

Bigtrees, it doesn't seem that these posters care exactly what the bill says, just that it's defeated. My next question would would be how many actually live here or are just trying to stop any bill in any state.

[bigtrees]

Originally Posted by jimj

Bigtrees, it doesn't seem that these posters care exactly what the bill says, just that it's defeated. My next question would would be how many actually live here or are just trying to stop any bill in any state.

You got that right!

[grizzfan]

I don't see that requiring insurance that covers your animal for dog bite injuries is beneficial to the owner or the public. People with insurance are 5x more likely to be sued than people without insurance because if you don't have money there is no point to getting sued. (I'm not making this up, it's widespread common knowledge among engineering professionals). (Vehicles are an exception because of the serious damage and injuries that they incur daily, dogs are a much smaller issue.)

[I have been bitten by a dog before while riding my bike. The dog got excited and went for my legs. I stopped, told the owner, and then called animal control. The guy looked at me strange and said she's never done that before. Since he had a 4 year old around, I'm sure he felt the dog was quiet and docile.

The problem with mandating insurance is it starts the government down the path of requiring insurance to protect against everything. Then the only people that win are the insurance companies. For example, here is Washington they require you to have a liability policy when you fly a model airplane in the sky because "it might injur someone." I think it's honestly a crock, something that the people who sell the insurance policies (in this case it's the national society for model aircraft) push for more sales. I think it's overkill and something that I don't agree with.

This is very, very faulty reasoning. First, to obtain a mortgage to purchase a home you are required to have a homeowner's policy on it by the lender. Most homeowner insurance companies require you to declare the dogs you own. No problem with my Golden Retriever; if I'd have had a German Shepherd, a Pit Bull or Rott Weiler my insurance would have either been denied or premiums placed out of sight. Second, if you own your home outright and drop your insurance, should your home burn you will be out of luck; and should your Pit Bull, for instance, bite and you are sued the plaintiff could be awarded your home. Not a very bright way to conduct your affairs my friend.

I read this thread pretty quickly and I don't think anybody has mentioned this part. Remember the NFL QB Michael Vick who was raising pit bulls for a dog fighting side-business? Why do you suppose he chose pit bulls? Why didn't he raise Golden Retrievers for this henous purpose? Checkmate. End of discussion.

[jenben777]

Originally Posted by Gman2007

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

Its a combination of many breeds

[Joe Doer]

Originally Posted by jenben777

Its a combination of many breeds

You have been on this message board since Tuesday and have 13 posts all on this topic. You have anything to talk about? I see a lot of new people all working on this. You are not going to change anyone's mind so you should probably go, "bark up a different tree"

[MontanaBabyD]

Originally Posted by bigtrees

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.

Actually according to this, the only way our pits won't be taken from us is if they are spayed/neutered or we register them with the state. Why should we have to register our pits? Do the people who own chihuahuas, labs, or Shih Tzus have to? No. I know this because I also own Shih Tzus and they are wayyyyyy more protective and territorial than my pit. If someone tried to break in our house the only way my pit would harm them is by kissing them to death or by being so excited she smacks them with her tail. Which can actually hurt. My Shih Tzus would however bark like mad and if loose try to actually harm the individual breaking in.

Luckily for me, I won't be going to jail due to preventing them from forcibly taking my dog (I will not register my pit unless I have to also register my other dogs....as well as all other breeds) because this bill was rejected. I'm sure Rep. Driscoll will do her darnest however to change it so as to try to repass it.

[jenben777]

Originally Posted by Joe Doer

You have been on this message board since Tuesday and have 13 posts all on this topic. You have anything to talk about? I see a lot of new people all working on this. You are not going to change anyone's mind so you should probably go, "bark up a different tree"

1 voted for the bill 17 against it.. this effected me when a bill was going to be passed to kill my dog. Those 17 people who voted against the bill must be crazy just like me eh?

[bigtrees]

Originally Posted by jenben777

1 voted for the bill 17 against it.. this effected me when a bill was going to be passed to kill my dog. Those 17 people who voted against the bill must be crazy just like me eh?

No, they aren't crazy. I also was opposed to the bill since I don't think that regulating the species of dogs that people own is the job of the Montana government.

The difference is you tried to convince all of us that pitbulls are really harmless dogs and everyone who things they bite is mixed up and there is a media conspiracy against pitbulls. Since I was curious I looked into it and lo and behold, pitbulls are known to be the most aggressive dogs and the ones that are most likely to cause serious injury to humans. (Hence is why homeowners insurance companies exclude injuries caused by pitbulls.) That's a factual statement and one that no one can provide evidence against.

After all, if bulls really are cute dogs and the worst thing they do is kiss, why is the Whitefish High School Mascot the Bulldogs? I mean, they should have called them the Whitefish Teacup Chiuauas or the Whitefish Llasa Apsa or something like that if Bulldogs really are peaceful, docile animals that don't harm anyone or anything. I feel really bad that my old high school mascot represents a dog that kisses all the time. I should have gone to a high school that had a tough mascot like a wildcat I guess.

[jenben777]

Originally Posted by bigtrees

No, they aren't crazy. I also was opposed to the bill since I don't think that regulating the species of dogs that people own is the job of the Montana government.

The difference is you tried to convince all of us that pitbulls are really harmless dogs and everyone who things they bite is mixed up and there is a media conspiracy against pitbulls. Since I was curious I looked into it and lo and behold, pitbulls are known to be the most aggressive dogs and the ones that are most likely to cause serious injury to humans. (Hence is why homeowners insurance companies exclude injuries caused by pitbulls.) That's a factual statement and one that no one can provide evidence against.

After all, if bulls really are cute dogs and the worst thing they do is kiss, why are they called the Whitefish Bulldogs? I mean, they could have called them the Whitefish Teacup Chiuauas or the Whitefish Llasa Apsa or something like that if Bulldogs really are peaceful, docile animals that don't harm anyone or anything.

haha dude shut up