Small burm????????

Where i live pitbulls were just recently banned.....it began with a local incident that papers headlines stated "Vicious dogs attack young boy" subheadline "Owner pitbulls turn on boy"


which was blongy.....the young boy was attacked by one of those tiny yappy vicious dogs(i forget there breed) and the pitbull was locked safley in his cage...the boy was for lack of better words tormenting the dog by pulling its hair out and kicking it and getting a lugh when the dog grollwed...eventauly the dog snapped and lunged at his face....by sayign young boy you woudl think the boy was like 5-6......wrong.....kid was 15 and damnwell knew what he was doing

everyone was upset with with peopel who own pitbulls because the media lied to get more readers.....regarless tho i hate it when people treat any animal like this .......be it a dog , snake , sugar glider w/e .....makes me angry ....amkes me more angry when peopel hate one breed because of irresonpible owners..grrrrrrrrrrrrrr

A little off topic, but this is a great discussion.

I am a firm believer in "There are no bad animals, only bad animal owners'.

And it is funny how some people will quickly sterotype you because of the animals you own like...

If you own a pit bull, you must be a drug dealing gangster that fights dogs.

OR

If you keep snakes, you are some devil worshiping psyco that uses them in rituals.

Ugh I totally understand....the media really enjoys making animals out to be these "evil" creatures when it benefits them. And you KNOW every time the dog is only like that because they've been neglected, I don't care what breed it is. It is scary that they're succeeding in banning certain dog breeds, though; when it gets to that point you never know what they'll go after next. =(

We have a local ban on pit bulls, but they really dont enforce it, there is a pit bull that lives 2 houses down from me. It is sad that they have that ban, pit bulls, if raised right with no abuse, are not mean and aggressive. In fact, I have had a few and they were AWESOME dogs. So loveable, intelligent and personable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeanne

We have a local ban on pit bulls, but they really dont enforce it, there is a pit bull that lives 2 houses down from me. It is sad that they have that ban, pit bulls, if raised right with no abuse, are not mean and aggressive. In fact, I have had a few and they were AWESOME dogs. So loveable, intelligent and personable.

---

The way I see it, big dogs, snakes, guns and cars are really all the same thing. I think more effort should be spent in qualifying the owners, than banning or imposing general limitations on people who own them. Of course the cost for responsible management of these things is so overwhelming that Govts find it easier to just ban them.

Spencer, the problem with putting requirements on things is that the requirements can somewhat out-if-hand. Like Louisiana's requirement of 500 hours of handling experience before you can own large boids legally. Who really has 500 free hrs and a place to get that much handling experience from a qualified individual? They have these all these laws but I can still go 5 minutes up the road to the nearest petstore and buy a burm if I really wanted to. The ENTIRE system needs to be rethought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daniel1983

Spencer, the problem with putting requirements on things is that the requirements can somewhat out-if-hand. Like Louisiana's requirement of 500 hours of handling experience before you can own large boids legally. Who really has 500 free hrs and a place to get that much handling experience from a qualified individual? They have these all these laws but I can still go 5 minutes up the road to the nearest petstore and buy a burm if I really wanted to. The ENTIRE system needs to be rethought.

---

I didn't say requirements, I used the word "qualifying" specifically. I'm well aware of bad requirements or limitations.

Requirements are cheap and easy to put in place. Truly qualifying someone is something that takes far more work, is not reproducible, and ends up allowing only the most responsible of people to take part in the given activity.

It would also leave a large share of voters angry because they are "not qualified."

I guess I see requirements and qualifications as the same thing..ha ;) LIke I said...this is a good topic. How are reptile control issues in Canada?

I think a good solution here in Louisiana would be similar to way that a person qualifies to go hunting. I have to have a Hunter's Safety Card. I had to go to several night classes (that are offered usually once every two months or so) where we reviewed how to hunt safely of both people and animals with a representative of DWF. Then we took a test. If you want to get a hunting license in Louisiana, you have to have this card. I dont see why they could not place the same restriction/qualification on large boids...a few night classes on care of reptiles, take a test, then you cant buy certain reptiles in pet stores unless you present the card. That would cut down on impulse buys and greatly reduce the number of people getting snakes that they dont know how to care for. Just an idea.

I'm hoping I read the part about hunting people wrong! lol

Canada manages to screw this up as much as most places.

Licensing is an important way to distinquish the qualified people from the unqualified people, but unfortunately the license is only as good as the process that people have to go through to get it, or the enforcement of the license.

For example, if I can't speak english here, I can get a translator to come with me to assist in the exam. The tester really has no clue what is being said between the one being tested and the translator, so frequently arrangements are made where the translator is really giving the right answers, or guiding the one being tested. Obviously quite flawed.

When I qualified for air-brakes however I was quite impressed with the process in that it was quite hard to pass without real knowlege of air-brakes.

The difference between a requirement and a qualification is that you may be required to be 16 years of age, but to be qualified you would have to possess a responsible attitude towards driving. Obviously it's a lot easier to prove you are 16 than it is to prove you are responsible.

Just to interject an opposing opinion, I don't agree that lisencing is the answer. I'm not against the intention, but when you start getting into testing people so they can have the "right" to own a living creature...I'm one of those paranoid "government stays out of my business" people I guess. Also, the way I see it, guns were designed with the express purpose of killing, period. However, a dog or a snake, even if they are dangerous, is not usually bred with the intention of using it to kill people. And in regards to cars, I can see your guys' point, but the fact that nearly everyone drives seems to make it a natural thing to give classes on. Just my 2 cents =P