Think BSL is Only About "Pit Bulls", or Exotic Bans Won't Affect Domestic Pet Owners?

BQC123

Arachnobaron
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
413
Unfortunately this is how all the groups looking to ban something work. They slowly chip away by saying "We are not looking to ban all (fill in the blank), only (fill in the blank). Unfortunately they will not stop there.
Get that thing banned, and work on the next. "Common sense" bans are an easy way to get a foot in the door. Small victories for them lead to larger ones in the future. Many owners say "Oh they only want to ban pitt bulls, that does not effect me". Next time they may want your dog and then you are willing to fight. Unfortunately the momentum is in their favor so it is much tougher. Divide and conquer. Gun ban laws work the same way.
 

pitbulllady

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
May 1, 2004
Messages
2,290
Unfortunately this is how all the groups looking to ban something work. They slowly chip away by saying "We are not looking to ban all (fill in the blank), only (fill in the blank). Unfortunately they will not stop there.
Get that thing banned, and work on the next. "Common sense" bans are an easy way to get a foot in the door. Small victories for them lead to larger ones in the future. Many owners say "Oh they only want to ban pitt bulls, that does not effect me". Next time they may want your dog and then you are willing to fight. Unfortunately the momentum is in their favor so it is much tougher. Divide and conquer. Gun ban laws work the same way.
That is exactly right! Too bad that there are still a lot of animal owners, including a lot of people right here on AB, who feel(I won't use the word "think" in this case)that it IS OK and a fine and good thing to ban certain animals, animals that they themselves do not/would not own, so they believe that they and their animals won't be affected by this, OR they feel that everyone should have some sort of license or permit to own this or that, everyone except of course, THEMSELVES. The thing is, they never pause to consider who is enforcing the permit systems...the same folks who are pushing for outright BANS, the same people who ultimately are trying to chip away and away until animal ownership is slowly but surely regulated out of existance. If you can't ban it, regulate it it the extent that eventually no one will be able to afford it, or can tolerate the hoops you have to jump through to keep it, or pass the requirements necessary to get a permit to have it. Permits are often too pricey and the requirements too difficult, and are enforced by people with no knowledge of the husbandry of the animals in question, who would rather no one have those animals in the first place, so how fair would that be? It's like the HSUS's ballot initiative that they were pushing in Ohio, wherein THEY would have taken over the state's livestock and poultry industries and run them THEIR way, when HSUS does NOT own or keep ANY livestock or poultry, and have NO experience whatsoever in doing so. It would be comparable to obtaining your driver's license from someone who has never, ever driven a vehicle, knows nothing of how to operate one, and believes that cars should be totally banned because of their polluting the environment and using fossil fuels, anyway. Who are they to judge whether or not YOU can safely operate a motor vehicle?

Several years ago, SC tried to ban "wolf-hybrids" after a well-publicised attack on a ten-year-old girl by a "wolf-hybrid"(actually, mostly German Shepherd)a Cocker Spaniel and a "little white mutt". The Cocker and the little white mutt's roles(the little white dog, according to the victim, actually attacked her first, causing her to run and scream, the WORST thing to do when approached by dogs)were quickly forgotten and ignored, but the role of the "wolf-hybrid" was hammered into our brains by the media, prompting a Columbia lawmaker to push for a statewide ban on them. One of the most ardent supporters of the ban was a breeder of AKC show Alaskan Malamutes, mainly because someone had bought one of her dogs and bred it to a *GASP* WOLF! The very idea that someone would create mixed-breed pups with one of her Champion-sired dogs convinced her that the bad was the only way to prevent this from ever happening again! When it came time for the public hearing, I, along with several people opposed to the ban, gathered our evidence to combat it, and part of our arsenal was a stack of over 100 photographs of various canines, some known recent wolf crosses, others not, many purebred AKC dog breeds. One of the photos was of this Malamute breeder's Champion stud dog, a well-known show dog. We presented our photos to the "experts" who were in favor of the bill, including the SC state HSUS rep, a wild fur-bearer "expert" from our DNR, several animal control officers, and the lawmaker who had written the bill. Without exception, ALL of them identified the woman's Champion Alaskan Malamute as a wolf or "wolf-hybrid", and one of the AC officers commented, "NOBODY should be allowed to have a dog like that!" Needless to say, the woman's staunch support for the ban got a real kick in pants when she realized that it WOULD affect her and her dogs in a very negative way! One of the other dogs 100% ID'd as a "wolf-hybrid" was my male brindle Japanese import Akita Inu, which generated the comment from the DNR guy that he "had to be part wolf because he looked mean". A 50/50, F1 wolf x St. Bernard, though, was missed by 100% of the "experts". One of them insisted that he was the dog from the tv sitcom, "Empty Nest"! The point of this is that animal owners should NEVER assume that animal bans or restrictions will not affect them because they don't have "those animals", especially when you consider who will be enforcing the bans or restrictions, or who is in charge of issuing permits, because the other thing you should never assume is that those people actually know what they are doing or know anything at all about animals.

pitbulllady
 
Top