Breed speciific legislation – a double edged sword.

Author: admin  |  Category: Animals, Politics  |  Comment (1)  |  Add Comment

I consider breed specific legislation a serious problem here in the US. It is a very sharp double-edged sword.

On one hand, legitimate and responsible breeders and owners are kept from owning the breed in question thus reducing the number of people trying to improve the breed. With the reduction of responsible owners and breeders you have a much higher percentage of irresponsible owners and breeders thus making a bad situation worse.

Now, this breed that is labeled as a bad breed will get nothing but bad press from the bad owners and breeders making it seem like there is need for stronger legislation against the breed.

And it spirals downward in that direction.

On the other side, instead of the bad part of the breeders and owners into this breed, they now get into other breeds making them a “bad breed” in the eyes of the people who write these laws.

Perfect example:

Pit bulls have a very bad reputation in the US. I don’t think anyone would argue this point. From what I’ve also seen, a majority of the pit bull owners and breeders are irresponsible (note: not all). Pit bulls are also the choice dogs for dog fighting.

So, states, counties, and cities are banning pit bulls making it harder for these people to own them and the few that do, are less likely to be responsible with their breedings and ownerships.

There are a lot of people now who can’t get this breed so they want to continue with their dog fighting and irresponsible ownership so what do they do? They get into another breed. Shepherds, bulldogs, Dobermans, rottweilers, and so on. Now, there is a more dominant bad element with these breeds. So what happens? The politicians start to make legislation against these breeds. I’m already seeing places ban shepherds (one of the most loyal breeds out there, if well bred, trained, and owned).

The solution? That’s easy. Stricter guidelines for breeders and certifications for dogs (allow dogs to be bred that meet a standard) and require all dog owners to go though at least one set of training classes with their dogs. Don’t discriminate, educate people on dogs, how they act, how they thing and so on.

People need to wake up and see that banning specific dog breeds is not the solution.

Congo, the German shepherd gets a second chance!

Author: admin  |  Category: Animals, News  |  Comments (0)  |  Add Comment

It is amazing how messed up laws are getting in this country (USA) along with the media in regards to dogs.

Recently, there was an incident involving a German shepherd and a landscaper in Princeton, NJ. The German shepherd’s name is Congo and the story can be found here.

In this article it seems pretty cut and dry. The German shepherd “mauled” a landscaper. Linda Stein made this quite clear in the article:

“Guy and Elizabeth James, the Princeton Township couple whose German shepherd mauled a landscaper who came onto their property on June 5, 2007,”

Too bad she didn’t include all of the facts and painted the picture of a German shepherd running to attack the defenseless landscaper.

Copy and paste this line into a Google search bar and be the judge for yourself:
+Congo +”German Shepherd” +”New Jersey”

After the first few links you’ll see that many facts were left out of the above article.
- The landscapers were an hour early and told to wait in their truck
- It was on the dog owner’s property
- The landscapers ignored this request and went into the yard anyway
- The German shepherd did NOT approach the landscapers in any aggressive way, the wife was trying to gather them up.
- The landscaper panicked and grabbed the wife to use her as a human shield causing her to fall to the ground
- Only then, after the wife fell did the German shepherd jump in to “protect” her.

While this is clearly a case of mistaken intentions, the German shepherd did EXACTLY what many people get dogs for and I would hope that my dogs would do the same. In the dog’s eyes, its alpha (the wife) was being attacked (how many times do adults knock themselves onto the ground and it is not an attack?). The puppies that joined in were only doing what their lead-dog was doing.

The landscapers made several mistakes which lead to the dog defending the wife. Yes, this is very unfortunate but people need to realize that you do NOT grab a dog’s owner right in front of the dog especially if the dog does not know you.

Luckily, the family won appeals and were able to keep the dog (after spending months in a shelter, which who knows what kind of psychological damage was done to the dog) but pay hefty fines and live with several restrictions on the animal.

I love the closing line in the article:
“”It was a good settlement for both parties,” James said. “The township got their protection and we got what we wanted.””

The township got protection from what? A dog that wants to protect its pack alphas? I guess we should let all criminals know about this township. This article (and the quote) is sending a clear message that you CAN enter someone’s property and grab someone and if their dog bites you in the act, you CAN sue them and press charges.

I guess I’m not surprised this is coming from the same state that killed Meghan’s Law and gave more rights to the child molesters than the actual victims.

Thank god that I live in an area where you CAN defend yourself and property and it’s already gone into the courts and they ruled in favor of the people protecting their property. I guess New Jersey doesn’t allow people to defend themselves (note: criminals, move to New Jersey!).