Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Romanos
What one country (Italy) has mistakenly and stupidly done with Corgis does not compute to other countries following suit. Apart from Catholicism, who has copied anything off the Italians?  |
One only has to look to the influence of the European Council and its power within the European Union. The latest list of 40 breeds that will be outlawed under the guise of animal "welfare" debuncts that.
Quote:
|
NZ has barred the importing of four breeds - we would have banned more but the demand for this kind of action did not occur until only a few years ago.
|
And why is that? How long have the banned breeds been in NZ? IF they are a problem now, why weren't they a problem years ago?
Quote:
|
I think following this recent tragedy and the aftermath, more breeds will be barred form importing or breeding - the latter does nothing as what will stop cross breeding?
|
Nor will it stop picking another breed and creating the same problems.
Quote:
|
They are going to take some kind of new action in NZ - what do any other members suggest.
|
New for NZ perhaps, but not elsewhere. Need to take a look at Denver, CO and see how "well" they handled it. In some of the breed bans passed one of the identifying characteristics is color. Your "dangerous" pit bulls come in brindle, so do Cardigans. And you will be giving animal control officers and other powers that be way too much credit if you think they are going to have the sense or care to recognize the difference in the dogs. (I'm not making this stuff up.)
Instead of breed bans, another way to approach the dangerous dogs is laws targeting dangerous dogs regardless of breed. What one needs to keep a watch out for in these type legislations is a common sense definition of what is a dangerous dog. Someone who is afraid of dogs is going to see a happy greeting bark as threatening. The Albuquerque and St. Louis ordinances include all an individual has to do is perceive a dog as a threat (regardless of truth or circumstances) and it can be labeled as dangerous. Additionally, in their opinion, intact animals are more inherent to be potentially dangerous than castrated or spayed ones and it has been proposed that all intact animals must be muzzled and on no more than a four foot leash in public. There would go Taylor's lifestyle.
Punish the deed, NOT the breed. If Miz Mimi's fluffydoo greets the postman with nips on the ankle everyday, then Miz Mimi needs to control her dog same as the macho 20 something male needs to control his "fighting" dog by keeping it properly fenced. Both of these type individual owners are examples of irresponsible ownership. Miz Mimi is going to get off, whereas Mr. Macho who's dog may not hurt a fly is going to pay the price.
Debbie