A controversial law banning certain pets, including pit bulls and rottweilers, has been repealed

[Satanika]

L.I. Town Repeals Ban on Pit Bulls, Rottweilers

 

[pwilson5]

i think banning a breed is like hating an entire religion for the actions of a set of extremists.. not everyone is that way.. so why punish the whole group?

 

[GPulchra]

Pit bulls aren't bad! They are only bad if treated badly, and that is what most people do. That's just sick to have a law like such. Ironically, it's in a way banning us from doing something that could cause this breed to be dangerous. But heck, if they are willing to ban the stereotype they should ban all animals that make a sound! It's unfair and crude.

 

[EightLeggedFrea]

I've never own a pit or a rottie, but it really annoys me that people push to pass laws that outlaw ownership of them. Incidentally I do know some people who own such breeds and they are the best dogs in the world.

 

[cannabeast]

L.I. Town Repeals Ban on Pit Bulls, Rottweilers

HAHAHAHAHAHA they are making certain DOGS illegal in the united states of america? the land of the free and all that jazz? certain dogs are illegal to have... who comes up with this rubbish?

 

[pitbulllady]

HAHAHAHAHAHA they are making certain DOGS illegal in the united states of america? the land of the free and all that jazz? certain dogs are illegal to have... who comes up with this rubbish?

Oh, yes, it's all very true I'm afraid, and yes, it IS ironic that we call ourselves the "Land of the Free" when the general mood right now is to pass laws right and left that control and restrict every little aspect of citizens' lives, isn't it? Many counties and towns and cities have passed what is known as "BSL", or "Breed-Specific Legislation", laws that put severe restrictions or outright bans on certain kinds of dogs, based soley on APPEARANCE, since nearly all include the statement, "any dogs RESEMBLING or having the significant physical characteristics of..." the breeds named in the law. Most such laws include "pit bulls"(a generic term applying to ALL short-coated, muscular dogs of medium-large size) and Rottweilers, and many also include "wolf-hybrids"(a non-existant animal, since wolves and dogs are the same species)-a term that often applies to all Northern/Arctic dogs, and German Shepherds and Dobermans. There is a strong push by the "Animal Rights" groups, especially PETA, to ban certain breeds "for their own good". Politicians jump all over any news reports of dog attacks, bites, etc., especially since every biting dog is pretty much guaranteed to be called a "pit bull" over here, as they see this as a way to look like heroes if they ban these dogs to protect their subjects, and they looove to play the "child card"-"we must get rid of these monsters before a child is killed"! Lately, reptiles, especially large snakes, and other "exotic" animals have been added to the list of banned/restricted animals, as politicians rub elbows with the Animal Rights groups.

pitbulllady

 

[cannabeast]

that makes me really sad to hear. it sounds really terrible to restrict human beings' basic freedom of interacting with nature to this kind of oppressive level D; i really had no idea this kind of thing was going on over there... to say what kind of pets you are allowed to own seems terrible. i thought this post was someone's mistake at first. im so sorry

P.S.btw PETA is a terrorist group with an ulterior motive of making human beings miserable with the excuse of the poor animals.. my wife is vegan and she HATES them and claims they give a terrible reputation for animal lovers and protectors!

 

[DeeSeven]

I won't comment on peta cause I'll take up 3 pages of this forum lol. As for the law sadly its becoming more and more common, but what is actually getting worse is that you cant even rent places if you have a dog like "that". My neighbor just got evicted last week because she got a German Shepard puppy and wouldn't give him up. Right now the girlfriend and I are looking at apartments (my lease is up in november) and almost EVERY place we look at has some lengthly list of what animal you cant and can have some are pretty basic like "no dogs over 75 lbs" while others are quite extensive like "cant have "insert this breed, that breed, this breed, no snakes over an arm lengths, no reptiles that are out of North America". What exactly is a snake over an arms length and who's arm are we measuring here? I know companies need to protect themself but come on. Then again the apartment place with the no snake over an arms length said that spiders and frogs aren't pets so I can keep them lol

 

[pitbulllady]

that makes me really sad to hear. it sounds really terrible to restrict human beings' basic freedom of interacting with nature to this kind of oppressive level D; i really had no idea this kind of thing was going on over there... to say what kind of pets you are allowed to own seems terrible. i thought this post was someone's mistake at first. im so sorry

P.S.btw PETA is a terrorist group with an ulterior motive of making human beings miserable with the excuse of the poor animals.. my wife is vegan and she HATES them and claims they give a terrible reputation for animal lovers and protectors!

Yeah, I know that PETA is a terrorist group who has done absolutely NOTHING to help animals, and in fact, they slaughter thousands of animals in their "shelter" each year, under the ruse of "giving them a peaceful way out of a world that doesn't want them". Many of those animals are given up by owners who are no longer able to keep them, due to their own health, money, living situations(see DeeSeven's post-this is far more common that most people think), abusive family members who have threatened the animal, etc. and those people believe that sure an organization that bills itself "People for the ETHICAL Treatment of Animals" would let an animal come to harm, would they? PETA's philosophy is that animals are better off dead than living in a world where humans are in charge, or where we exist at all. They, and all the other Animal Rights groups, especially the Humane Society of the United States and its many "umbrella" organizations(Fund For Animals, Animal Defense League, Doris Day Animal Foundations, Born Free USA/Animal Protection Institute, etc.)are really all about controlling PEOPLE via their animals. It's like any fascist group who is rising to power; if you can find a common thread among the populace, be it religion, food, or in this case, animals, and gain control of that, you subsequently control the populace itself. Most of us are in some way impacted directly by animals; we either keep them as pets, sell or buy them, eat them, wear them, depend on them or development of biomedical breakthroughs that could save our(or those of our pets-people tend to forget that breakthroughs in veterinary medicine are the direct result of animal experimentations, too)lives, or we study them or just enjoy photographing them, but few of us can claim that animals play no role in our daily lives. Worldwide, animals are also a major part of our own food supply, so again, once a group has control of that aspect, they basically have the populace by its collective cojones and they can get whatever they want.

pitbulllady

 

[cannabeast]

Then again the apartment place with the no snake over an arms length said that spiders and frogs aren't pets so I can keep them lol

HAHAHA

Yeah, I know that PETA is a terrorist group who has done absolutely NOTHING to help animals, and in fact, they slaughter thousands of animals in their "shelter" each year, under the ruse of "giving them a peaceful way out of a world that doesn't want them". Many of those animals are given up by owners who are no longer able to keep them, due to their own health, money, living situations(see DeeSeven's post-this is far more common that most people think), abusive family members who have threatened the animal, etc. and those people believe that sure an organization that bills itself "People for the ETHICAL Treatment of Animals" would let an animal come to harm, would they? PETA's philosophy is that animals are better off dead than living in a world where humans are in charge, or where we exist at all. They, and all the other Animal Rights groups, especially the Humane Society of the United States and its many "umbrella" organizations(Fund For Animals, Animal Defense League, Doris Day Animal Foundations, Born Free USA/Animal Protection Institute, etc.)are really all about controlling PEOPLE via their animals. It's like any fascist group who is rising to power; if you can find a common thread among the populace, be it religion, food, or in this case, animals, and gain control of that, you subsequently control the populace itself. Most of us are in some way impacted directly by animals; we either keep them as pets, sell or buy them, eat them, wear them, depend on them or development of biomedical breakthroughs that could save our(or those of our pets-people tend to forget that breakthroughs in veterinary medicine are the direct result of animal experimentations, too)lives, or we study them or just enjoy photographing them, but few of us can claim that animals play no role in our daily lives. Worldwide, animals are also a major part of our own food supply, so again, once a group has control of that aspect, they basically have the populace by its collective cojones and they can get whatever they want.

pitbulllady

wow these have been very graphically informative, and ver concerning. i appreciate you guys letting me know whats going on over there from a real person's point of view, anyway. yeah i imagine if you did control all animals in the earth.. how would we do anything? i guess even these 'animal rights' organizations you speak of depend on the animals to generate their income\generous living stipend. i guess this is something to think of when moving to a new apartment in the united states.

 

[AudreyElizabeth]

Yeah, I know that PETA is a terrorist group who has done absolutely NOTHING to help animals, and in fact, they slaughter thousands of animals in their "shelter" each year, under the ruse of "giving them a peaceful way out of a world that doesn't want them". Many of those animals are given up by owners who are no longer able to keep them, due to their own health, money, living situations(see DeeSeven's post-this is far more common that most people think), abusive family members who have threatened the animal, etc. and those people believe that sure an organization that bills itself "People for the ETHICAL Treatment of Animals" would let an animal come to harm, would they? PETA's philosophy is that animals are better off dead than living in a world where humans are in charge, or where we exist at all. They, and all the other Animal Rights groups, especially the Humane Society of the United States and its many "umbrella" organizations(Fund For Animals, Animal Defense League, Doris Day Animal Foundations, Born Free USA/Animal Protection Institute, etc.)are really all about controlling PEOPLE via their animals. It's like any fascist group who is rising to power; if you can find a common thread among the populace, be it religion, food, or in this case, animals, and gain control of that, you subsequently control the populace itself. Most of us are in some way impacted directly by animals; we either keep them as pets, sell or buy them, eat them, wear them, depend on them or development of biomedical breakthroughs that could save our(or those of our pets-people tend to forget that breakthroughs in veterinary medicine are the direct result of animal experimentations, too)lives, or we study them or just enjoy photographing them, but few of us can claim that animals play no role in our daily lives. Worldwide, animals are also a major part of our own food supply, so again, once a group has control of that aspect, they basically have the populace by its collective cojones and they can get whatever they want.

pitbulllady

:worship: Well said, as always.

 

[jenniferinny]

Haha, you know what I think is funny?
That the article said that animal rights activists protested the law.. lol

No dummies, animal WELFARE advocates protested the law. Animal RIGHTS activists promoted and funded the law..

I really wish there would be like a one hour TV special about the difference between animal welfare and animal rights right during prime time TV.

I'm so tired of having to explain the difference. Suggest adopting from an animal shelter and people think your also against eating meat. It's like, no, I like responsible breeders who raise their animal to a standard. I eat meat and feed my pets meat. I support animal welfare, not animals rights and they're completely different..

I'm also against any pet keeping bans. That's animal welfare, animal rights activists promote bans.. PETA and HSUS both openly support breed bans while the ASPCA, an animal welfare organization, is against them..

Oh well..

 

[pitbulllady]

Haha, you know what I think is funny?
That the article said that animal rights activists protested the law.. lol

No dummies, animal WELFARE advocates protested the law. Animal RIGHTS activists promoted and funded the law..

I really wish there would be like a one hour TV special about the difference between animal welfare and animal rights right during prime time TV.

I'm so tired of having to explain the difference. Suggest adopting from an animal shelter and people think your also against eating meat. It's like, no, I like responsible breeders who raise their animal to a standard. I eat meat and feed my pets meat. I support animal welfare, not animals rights and they're completely different..

I'm also against any pet keeping bans. That's animal welfare, animal rights activists promote bans.. PETA and HSUS both openly support breed bans while the ASPCA, an animal welfare organization, is against them..

Oh well..

That is one of the most desperately needed tv specials, EVER! Most people do not know the differences between "Animal Welfare" and "Animal RIGHTS", even though those differences are staggering. The media, as usual, gets it wrong most of the time, and labels anyone who tries to help animals or is against animal abuse and cruelty or who tries to repeal bans like this one as "animal rights" activists, when they are nothing of the sort! A couple of years ago, a neighboring county tried to impose BSL, under the claim that it would stop dog-fighting, which is the same line of thinking that if you learn that Ford Fusions are the cars most often involved in car thefts and car-jackings, the most logical way to prevent those crimes would be to ban all Ford Fusions. After all, people who are already involved with dealing, manufacturing and using illegal drugs, breaking into people's homes and businesses, beating up their girlfriends and who routinely drive around in uninsured vehicles are certainly going to pay attention to and follow this ONE law, right? Anyway, I actually, and most sincerely, threatened to kick a male reporter where it counted most for calling me an "animal rights activist" because I was there to speak out against the bill. To me, there is no label as vile and acrimonious as to lump me in with the likes of "Don" Wayne Pacelli, "The Butcher of Norfolk" Ingrid Newkirk(who has killed way more animals than Ted Nugent has even seen in his lifetime), Steve Best, Dr. Jerry Vlasik and the other terrorists and terrorist supporters. I meant that threat earnestly and sincerely, because it was worse than someone saying something horrible about my parents. Needless to say, he apologized quickly for the faux pas, and I calmed down enough to explain to him the difference, but I really don't think he "got it". "Animal Rights activist" sounds more exciting to the media types than "Animal Welfare advocate".

pitbulllady

 

[Galapoheros]

HAHAHAHAHAHA they are making certain DOGS illegal in the united states of america? the land of the free and all that jazz? certain dogs are illegal to have... who comes up with this rubbish?

Ha, I know, it's gone too far, the media sensationalizes a few or even one incident out of a million in order to outlaw something these days. If some people in government, ...control freaks, want to ban something, they find an excuse and work it. For instance, if they really wanted to censor the internet here in the US, they might sensationalize the fact that somebody killed their self because of something they read on the internet that "really bothered them". Instead of saying the person that killed their self was unstable, misguided or not parented well, they would try to blame the internet. The internet doesn't kill people, people do.