U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-02-2008, 08:56 AM
 
4,669 posts, read 4,068,970 times
Reputation: 409

Advertisements

How big was that pit bull? Maybe we need to lower the size limit.

 
Old 07-02-2008, 09:43 AM
 
12 posts, read 57,506 times
Reputation: 23
Pit Bulls should not be banned from Omaha. It is not the dog's fault when it attacks someone or gets loose. Rather, it is the owner's fault. Rather than banning the breed altogether, guidelines should be set forth for the owners. Numerous pit bulls are excellent dogs, and even serve as therapy dogs. The breed is not the problem, it is the owners who are the problem. More small dogs, such as cocker spaniels, bite people every day.

In all fairness it must be noted that:
  • Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.
  • An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000,).
  • Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.
Thus, banning pit bulls is not the resolution... It is only another ordinance designed to make people feel better, but does not actually address the real problem.
 
Old 07-02-2008, 09:48 AM
 
Location: Chicago
3,340 posts, read 8,687,007 times
Reputation: 1215
True, that dog had been taunted with a lawn mower many times by kids, and the wagon made a similar noise, so it made it angry
 
Old 07-02-2008, 09:53 AM
 
12 posts, read 57,506 times
Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
It's hard to enforce a ban on a specific breed. Is this going to be for 100% pure-breds? 50% breeds? 25%? What line do we draw?

Having said that, I don't see a reason that the average home owner needs a 120 pound pit bull, rotweiler, doberman, or whatever. I think a ban on any dog over a certain weight limit, say 80 lbs., would be more effective--and easier to enforce. I realize that such a ban would also include a lot of labs, shepherds, and even the lovable golden retriever...but at some point one has to say that large dogs just aren't good for an urban environment.

I have 3 small dogs--and yes--each one of them are capable of biting and doing damage to a small child. But if my mini schnauzer flips out and attacks the consequences are much much less severe than if a pit bull 10 times her size latches on to a kid.
Any dog can attack. The only dog that has ever attacked me was a beagle. It attached onto my leg and had to be pulled off by its owners. I was simply walking by on the sidewalk. As a result I had stiches. The beagle was well under any 80lb. weight limit. Size is not the way to restrict what breeds are allowed. Plus, pit bulls can vary from 22-110 lbs. So while you would be restricting some of the dog breed you fear, a large majority would still be allowed. Whereas I would have to get rid of my black lab who is just over 80lbs. Your solution is only a gut reaction out of fear to make people feel better. It really isn't going to solve anything.
 
Old 07-02-2008, 09:55 AM
 
12 posts, read 57,506 times
Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
It's just very difficult to draw the line.

A size limit is the easiest way to limit it. You just don't hear many stories of pomeranians hopping fences and attacking kids walking home from school.
If you go by size, then I would have to get rid of my two dogs. One is 80 lbs. and the other one will be closer to 130 lbs. when it reaches adulthood. Both of my dogs are breeds that are known to be very friendly and sociable.

A size limit infringes to much upon people's freedom.
 
Old 07-02-2008, 10:19 AM
 
4,669 posts, read 4,068,970 times
Reputation: 409
It's simple. You don't need a large dog in the city limits. Larger dogs need more room anyway--and are generally not good house dogs. You don't have a constitutional right to a large dog, nor is it a basic human right. Sometimes when we choose to live in a city we have to make concessions. Your dogs may be lovable, nice animals--but they are still dangerous under certain circumstances.

Common sense tells you that if a large dog attacks it will do more damage. If the beagle that attacked ran39822 has been 2-3 times bigger it would have done more damage.
 
Old 07-02-2008, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Papillion
2,585 posts, read 9,525,511 times
Reputation: 890
Quote:
Originally Posted by ran39822 View Post
Pit Bulls should not be banned from Omaha. It is not the dog's fault when it attacks someone or gets loose. Rather, it is the owner's fault. Rather than banning the breed altogether, guidelines should be set forth for the owners. Numerous pit bulls are excellent dogs, and even serve as therapy dogs. The breed is not the problem, it is the owners who are the problem. More small dogs, such as cocker spaniels, bite people every day.

I understand what you are saying about the owners, but you also can't deny that it appears there is a higher percentage of harmful attacks recently in this area from the specific bread.

Those that propose not banning the breed but working with the owner I don't hear any practical things they say need to be changed that could also be enforced.

Favor: What do you see as the specific policy that would be passed that is also enforceable. I would like to understand a practical law, but until I do I fully support the bred-specific ban.

My logic for bred-specific (until I hear a practical owner based policy) is that between PitBull and Rotweiller those two have been the top two breds responsible for human death (not just bites, but resulted in death) from bites. Those two causing over 50% of the documented deaths in recent years. These two breds cause the higher proportion of serious harm or death. A bred specific ban may not dramatically reduce the number of bites, but it will reduce the serious bites and death caused by bites.

The bred specific ban is not an end all be all policy but it does help.

So what is your specific and practical policy that could be enforced?
 
Old 07-02-2008, 10:58 AM
 
4,669 posts, read 4,068,970 times
Reputation: 409
How would a breed ban possibly be enforced?

Define "pit bull". Is it a 100% pure-bred? Is it a 50% mix? What is it? If there was a simple way to do so I'd say do that over banning any and all large-breeds...but I just don't see a practical way of doing it.
 
Old 07-02-2008, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Downtown Omaha
1,362 posts, read 4,191,896 times
Reputation: 526
Pit bulls are dangerous.
Guns are dangerous.

Pit bulls can go off at any moment.
Guns can go off at any moment.

If the guns injures it's the fault of the owner for making it dangerous to others.
If the pit bull injures it's the fault of the owner for putting the dog in a situation where in can injure others.

I'm not for witch hunts and lynch mob mentalities based on emotion so I don't think a ban is neccessary.
 
Old 07-02-2008, 11:21 AM
 
16,633 posts, read 8,492,417 times
Reputation: 9507
Require insurance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top