Lee's Summit considering Pit Bull Ban

[rageeumr]

I can't believe this hasn't been talked about here... did I just miss it?

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/14824615.htm

Lee's Summit considers ban on pit bulls
The Kansas City Star

Lee's Summit is joining the list of cities talking about pit bulls.

Councilman Ed Cockrell on Wednesday proposed in a committee meeting that the breed be banned before the city has an incident.

Two other councilmen had mixed reactions. Councilman Ron Williams said people who already own pit bulls that behave should be allowed to keep those dogs, but he'd accept a ban on more pit bulls coming into the city. Randy Rhoads said a ban might create a false sense of security because other breeds are capable of seriously injuring people.

City Administrator Steve Lewis said Lee's Summit has ordinances to handle individually vicious dogs.

"There's a lot of debate about what's the best way to go," he said.

[Monkeylook4food]

Originally Posted by KingPriest2

Translator please

His post made perfect sense to me.

[BigRedChief]

Hey Big Daddy since I live in Lee's summit they might listen to me more than others. How do I find my representive and let them know I'm against the law?

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by BIG_DADDY

You end up with all the wrong people legislating it for all the wrong reasons, that's the proble. Furthermore it is unenforceable legislation. I am not for unenforceable legislation. I think the answer lies entirely on on ownership accountibility and punishing the deed. To me there are no chances. A dog the bites and innocent person should be put down 1st offense. The owner should be held liable and charges should be filed accordingly.

After reading a lot of the info posted here, I think I tend to agree with this. Of course, if the dog bites some kids that are messing with it through the fence, that's their own fault.

[MOhillbilly]

Originally Posted by Lzen

After reading a lot of the info posted here, I think I tend to agree with this. Of course, if the dog bites some kids that are messing with it through the fence, that's their own fault.

the thought occurs to me about the relation between the high prey drive of some animals and small children that scream yell squel and run in a yard/street next to a family (atleast two) high preydrive animals.

children left w/out adult supervision and animals not properly restrained.

whos really at fault if an attack occurs?


the parent or the dog owners? I mean can you say w/ 100% certainty?

[BIG_DADDY]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Hey Big Daddy since I live in Lee's summit they might listen to me more than others. How do I find my representive and let them know I'm against the law?

Here are the addresses:
Mayor-Karen.Messerli@lees-summit.mo.us
Council
jhallam@mid-west.net
hofmann.kathy@gmail.com
rrhoads@mid-west.net (opposes)
rwilliam@mid-west.net (doesn't want ban, but might be o.k. with BSL)
jspallo@sbcglobal.net
cockrelled@yahoo.com (he has proposed the legislation)
jffreeman@att.net
Swearngin@gmail.com

[elvomito]

i've owned pits many times throughout life...
on one occasion, i had a papered pit, 1983 i think, that attacked a child. this was the same child that teased/taunted her several times while she was chained... dogs do not forget. who's fault was it?
point is, people, especially children, need to be tought how to respect and interact with dogs, ie let the dog sniff your hand... if you want to pet the dog, go for under the chin and not on the head which is a dominating move and could provoke. things like this should be tought, maybe in those 20 second commercials during cartoons. ignorance of the general public will not be cured by removing things that could allow them to hurt themselves, it will only make it worse, just like the war on drugs.
imagine the war on pits... they will be bred/sold underground, but with less focus on quality breeding. and the problem will grow. prohibition always results in a worse situation than what it is trying to prevent.
for instance, outlawing the fighting of dogs techinically had a negative impact on pits right? manbiters who bit a human in the ring were instantly diagnosed as such and put down, correct? now there is no such test for 99% of the dogs created today. (i may be wrong, thats just what i've read)
btw, chows are manbiters by nature... ****ers, i hatem

[MOhillbilly]

Originally Posted by elvomito

imagine the war on pits... they will be bred/sold underground, but with less focus on quality breeding. and the problem will grow. prohibition always results in a worse situation than what it is trying to prevent.
for instance, outlawing the fighting of dogs techinically had a negative impact on pits right? manbiters who bit a human in the ring were instantly diagnosed as such and put down, correct? now there is no such test for 99% of the dogs created today. (i may be wrong, thats just what i've read)
btw, chows are manbiters by nature... ****ers, i hatem

the animal welfare act of 76' did more to **** up the breed imo than anything else.
it lifted the breed to an outlaw mindset.

and yeah your correct to a point on the rest of it.
phenominal combat dogs were not putdown. Adams Zebo was a known manbiter biting one owners child and taking his ear off. This line as far as im concerned is still manbiters.(its hard to set them straight once theyre wrong)

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by MOhillbilly

the thought occurs to me about the relation between the high prey drive of some animals and small children that scream yell squel and run in a yard/street next to a family (atleast two) high preydrive animals.

children left w/out adult supervision and animals not properly restrained.

whos really at fault if an attack occurs?


the parent or the dog owners? I mean can you say w/ 100% certainty?

If the dog is not restrained, the owner is at fault.

[MOhillbilly]

Originally Posted by Lzen

If the dog is not restrained, the owner is at fault.

thats where you get into a gray area. what is proper restraint?

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by MOhillbilly

thats where you get into a gray area. what is proper restraint?

If your dog can climb a fence or figure out how to get out another way, then a chain is a proper restraint. Otherwise, a fence will do. A dog's owner should know what his animal is capable of.

[go bo]

Originally Posted by lzen

If your dog can climb a fence or figure out how to get out another way, then a chain is a proper restraint. Otherwise, a fence will do. A dog's owner should know what his animal is capable of.

i dunno...

i think my lab-chow pound puppy is smarter than me...