|
Posted by krw on November 25, 2006, 7:27 pm
rickbrandt2@hotmail.com says...
> > Have you ever heard of training a pet? I guess not, your momma
> > failed.
>
> Ah, the professional dog owner argument.
Nope, not me. Don't even own a dog currently. I've met quite a
few very friendly Pit Bulls, and particularly Rotties. It *can* be
done. Just don't torture the thing and you're a long way down the
right road.
> Sure, I would have no problem with
> legislation that limited pit bull ownership to those who took classes both for
> the owner and with their dog and required that both pass an examination of
> aptitude after same.
I'm against any legislation that singles out a particular breed.
It won't work for the same reason that laws against "designer
drugs" don't.
>
> Of course when bad things happened under those conditions I would expect the
> owner to be jailed for reckless endangerment since they had obviously cheated
or
> produced fraudulent proof of having taken the classes (since no one that had
> taken the classes could possibly have an incident right?).
I'd have no problem with that for any dog that seriously injures
someone.
> The current REAL problem is that any ordinary asshole can acquire these dogs
and
> not all of them are going to spend the time and effort to provide anything
> beyond rudimentary training.
Assholes can drive cars too.
> Is it your position that when Joe Average acquires and does NOT train his dog
> extensively that the dog's danger to society is the same regardless of breed?
No, it's my position that if the dog (any breed) is dangerous, the
owner be held responsible.
> That breed doesn't enter into the equation at all?
Correct. The dog cannot be responsible, rather the owner/ If
insurance companies want to limit breeds they'll insure, I really
don't have much to say though. Contract, and all...
--
Keith
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap