|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:31 am
For homework I have to write a paper about an injustice of the world. I picked dogs getting the death penalty for bitting a human. I have tried and tried Google and Yahoo search and I just can't find the laws. If I'm lucky I can find a story or two off a news site from these searches.
I am just so frustrated. I HATE HATE HATE, I just can't stand research, and I have been, and each paper is just so hard, and it just gets harder the more I do it.
So I ask people, apparently my state doesn't have any laws like this. I doubt that but w/e, I'll find other states and make the paper more wide. BUT I CAN'T. crying
I can't even find proof on a law mentioned on a odd pet laws page, that a city in Colorado kills the owner if the owner looses the pet and it ends up in the pound for more than 24 hours.
I even have a migraine now, I think that is from my monitor though. I got this assignment on Monday, it is to be 450-500 words, with 4-5 sources including statistics, to be made into a mother ******** 10 page powerpoint we have to show to the class this Monday.
2 days in and I don't even have an outline because I can't find any information to know what I can write about. cry
WTF is wrong with me? I am piss off that this state doesn't kill for dogs biting someone. (Info from an animal control officer I was referred to by the Humane Society.)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:37 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:23 pm
Also, if you STILL can't find anything and are able to change the topic of your paper, that's what I would do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:48 pm
Metalic_Noodles I can't even find proof on a law mentioned on a odd pet laws page, that a city in Colorado kills the owner if the owner looses the pet and it ends up in the pound for more than 24 hours. They kill the owner? eek sounds a little harsh... Anyways, its the injustice of the WORLD right, not just the US? I found this http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/ukpga_19910065_en_1 from the UK. Its the dangerous dogs act, maybe if you google "dangerous dog legislation" you can find something in the US?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:31 am
there's a whole "punish the deed, not the breed" movement, you know. they'd be good places to start.
my personal favorite is called "pinups for pitbulls". the link is on my profile. xd
ya know, since i now own a pitbull and can tell you from personal experience that its the sweetest dog on the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:27 pm
Thank you for your help. Bluegrass, that link has an extra / that gives a 401 error. I decided to shift focus from attack laws to breed prejudice from dog attacks. Here it is. Prejudice Against Dog Breeds .......If dog breeds can be compared to as races, as a separation of appearance and ancestry within a species, then aren't pit bull bans racist? 'Pit bull' is not even a recognized breed, and even Labradors are occasionally classified under the umbrella of 'pit bull'. May of the most common sources of statistics require the human that was bitten to know and be able to differentiate breeds, and rely on hospital records. Skewed statistics and using a term without a clear-cut meaning, that makes a lot of sense. .......A Denver, Colorado ban against 'pit bulls' starts out listing three specific breeds: American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The ordinance goes on to include "... and/or any dog with a majority of physical traits of one or more of these breeds...", as stated in a news article on the American Kennel Club website, http://www.akc.org/ . This ordinance has forced many people to either send their dogs away, or euthanize them . The city and county have taken and killed many dogs with this ordinance as backing. Killed based on a vague racist ordinance; this seems like persecution with an unjust reason to me. .......The breed bans are based from statistics, usually acquired though reports and hospital records. I can't imagine a grown man reporting or visiting an ER because a Pomeranian tried to guard a couch. A bite from a Chiwawa in a leg before it was kicked it away might seem insignificant to an adult, a child sitting down when attacked could be inflicted with serious facial injuries. An article from the Vancouver Sun sums up my opinion on topic of why prejudice against breeds is pointless, stating that Cocker Spaniels are tied for second in attacks that cause a hospital visit. English, male, Cocker Spaniels are allowed to be shown only weighing up to 34lbs; making these dogs generally much smaller than any Rottwillers, and breeds categorized as Pitt bulls. .......Dogs breeds started when a need for a specific type for a specific duty was needed. Staffordshire and Bull terriers were bred to be aggressive, to fight other dogs. They had to be well disposed to all humans so that they could be examined and separated by even the opponent's handler. However, that does not mean that their personality is that of others of the same breed, past or present. Just because many humans enjoy killing, doesn't mean that we are all born and desire to go on murdering rampages. It is both nature and nurture; just because a dog has a disposition to being aggressive to dogs doesn't mean that they can't be socialized and taught how to interact properly, even if it may take more work. .......In conclusion, just because a breed or dog size isn't dangerous does not mean they should be exempt from the rules of large breeds. Large dogs have the body that makes it easier to harm other dogs and humans, and they can be trained or neglected in training so that they become aggressive. With the stereotypes, comes a different treatment. The way we treat these dogs changes, and sometimes this can be negatively, causing those same dogs to reinforce the stereotype. Each dog is different, each breed has different characteristics, and they are all good and useful in their own way if given a chance. Why does a country whose laws are so much against prejudice, allow rules that massacre the family companion of a law-abiding household? 581Vancouver Sun articleArticle about agressive dogsAKC articleA good place to go if you want statistics based on a walk-in-the-park test: ATTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 2:33 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:07 pm
i hate that also i don't know anything about animal punishment but all i can say is good luck
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:28 pm
Metalic_Noodles Thank you for your help. Bluegrass, that link has an extra / that gives a 401 error. oh, so it do, so it do. fixed it! xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:51 pm
That was so full of wrong information and misspellings I could barley read it =/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:08 pm
what's messed up to me about the whole banning breeds thing is that there are WAY more aggressive dogs who're considered "family pets" and therefore are never listed. like collies. THOSE are some aggressive a** dogs! i highly recommend going over to the lj comm called "petbulls". they have TONS of info on banning breeds and whatnot. xd linkage!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:38 pm
bluegrass cat what's messed up to me about the whole banning breeds thing is that there are WAY more aggressive dogs who're considered "family pets" and therefore are never listed. like collies. THOSE are some aggressive a** dogs! i highly recommend going over to the lj comm called "petbulls". they have TONS of info on banning breeds and whatnot. xd linkage!Don't forget chows, those dogs can be downright nasty at times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:21 am
I fixed this up a few days ago. Quote: If dog breeds can be compared to as races, as a separation of appearance and ancestry within a species, then aren't pit bull bans racist? 'Pit bull' is not even a recognized breed, and even Labradors are occasionally classified under the umbrella of 'pit bull'. Many of the most common sources of statistics rely on hospital records; and expect the human that was bitten to know and be able to differentiate between breeds. Sometimes it is the history of the breed that is blamed for this prejudice. I believe that breed bans are unjustified. A Denver, Colorado ban against 'pit bulls' starts out listing three specific breeds: American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The ordinance goes on to include "... and/or any dog with a majority of physical traits of one or more of these breeds...", as stated in a news article on the American Kennel Club website. This ordinance has forced many people to either send their dogs away, or to euthanize them. The city and county have taken and killed many dogs with this ordinance as backing. Killed, based on a vague and racist ordinance; this seems like persecution to me. The breed bans are based from statistics, usually acquired though reports and hospital records. I can't imagine a grown man reporting or visiting an ER because a Pomeranian tried to guard a couch. A bite from a Chiwawa in a leg before it was kicked it away might seem insignificant to an adult; a child sitting down when attacked could be inflicted with serious facial injuries. An article from the Vancouver Sun sums up my opinion on topic of why prejudice against breeds is pointless, as well as stating that Cocker Spaniels are tied for second in attacks that cause a hospital visit. English, male, Cocker Spaniels are allowed to be shown only weighing up to 34lbs; making these dogs generally much smaller than any Rottwillers, and breeds categorized as a ‘pitt bull’. Dog breeds start when a need for a specific type of dog for a specific duty is needed. Staffordshire and Bull terriers were bred to be aggressive, to fight other dogs. They had to be well disposed to all humans so that they could be examined and separated by even the opponent's handler. However, that does not mean that their personality is that of others of the same breed, past or present. Just because many humans enjoy killing, doesn't mean that we are all born and desire to a disposition to being aggressive to dogs doesn't mean that they can't be socialized and taught how to interact properly, even if it may take more work. In conclusion, just because a breed or dog size isn't dangerous does not mean they should be exempt from the rules of large breeds. Large dogs have the body that makes it easier to harm other dogs and humans, and they can be trained or neglected in training so that they become aggressive. With the stereotypes, comes a different treatment. The way we treat these dogs changes, and sometimes this can be negatively, causing those same dogs to reinforce the stereotype. Each dog is different, each breed has different characteristics, and they are all good and useful in their own way if given a chance. Why does a country whose laws are so much against prejudice, allow rules that massacre the family companion of a law-abiding household? Works Cited “Banning pit bulls would be pointless because the breed does not exist” Vancouver Sun; August 21, 2008; < http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=17d78504-add4-47ba-8ad8-dd1a01942d66&p=1 > Dobson, Roger; “Sausage dogs are the most aggressive dogs” 05 Jul 2008; < http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2254479/Sausage-dogs-are-the-most-aggressive-dogs.html > “AKC Represents Dog Owners in Challenge to Denver Breed Ban” July 30, 2008; < http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=3559 > A good place to go if you want statistics based on a walk-in-the-park test: http://www.atts.org/statistics.html I have more proofs in the power point. Get this, the teacher said 450-500 words, and then a week later said that it needs to be closer to 600. >_< WTF? This one is 575, close enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
