Germany bans pit bulls

H

Horny Toad

New member
Not REALLY firearms-related, but I found it interesting how the media in Germany have labeled pit bulls "combat dogs" in the article. Sure bears an eerie resemblance to "assault weapon" or "saturday night special".
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/06/28/germany.pitbulls.reut/index.html



Germany bans pit bull breeding after child's death
June 28, 2000
Web posted at: 10:56 AM EDT (1456 GMT)


BERLIN (Reuters) -- Germany imposed a nationwide ban on the breeding of pit bulls and other fighting dogs on Wednesday and prepared to ban their import following an uproar over the mauling death of a six-year-old boy.

Lawmakers said existing rules requiring such dogs to be muzzled and kept on a leash in public would be applied more rigorously and backed by fines of up to 100,000 marks ($48,000). Calls for combat dogs to be put down were, however, rejected.

Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder had pledged action after Monday's killing of a schoolchild by a Staffordshire terrier and a pit bull who ran wild on a school playing field in Hamburg.

"We cannot allow children to be put in danger simply because of the quirks of a few dog owners," Interior Minister Otto Schily told reporters. "You cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that these dogs are dangerous."

In Hamburg on Monday the Staffordshire terrier and a pit bull attacked about 10 children who were playing football. The victim was among those who fled in fear but was chased and mauled to death by the dogs, which were later shot dead by police.

Schroeder led a public outcry triggered by the attack, calling combat dogs "killing machines" that should be removed from the streets. The owner of the dogs in the Hamburg attack has been charged with causing death by negligence.

Under German law, the country's 16 states have jurisdiction over such matters. Previously, only the southern region of Bavaria banned the breeding of fighting dogs. Other states have resisted following Bavaria's lead.

However, regional interior ministers agreed in a telephone conference call on Wednesday to introduce a nationwide ban on pit bulls, Staffordshire and bull terriers "as well as other individual dog breeds and cross-breeds deemed dangerous."

The city state of Hamburg, where hundreds of people have taken to the streets to demand action after the killing of the ethnic Turkish child, issued a separate decree imposing a maximum fine of 100,000 marks ($48,100) for breaking the new laws.

Separately, the German railways announced an immediate ban on fighting breeds on its trains and in stations while the federal government announced that it would draft legislation banning the import of combat dogs as soon as possible.

Polls show around three-quarters of Germans support an all-out ban and most support tougher controls than existing plans for special licenses and compulsory use of muzzles and leashes.

In a separate attack on Tuesday night, a 27-year-old jogger suffered deep flesh wounds to her leg when a Staffordshire terrier attacked her in a public park, also in Hamburg. Police arrested the dog's owner, who was drunk.

In Cologne on Monday, a pit bull owner punched a 73-year-old man to the ground after the pensioner told him to keep his dog on a leash. Newspapers said the pit bull then savaged the man's face, biting a tennis ball-sized chunk out of his cheek. The man had to get hospital treatment, police said.

Opponents of pit bulls -- whose name derives from the arenas in which illegal dog fights are staged -- say the dogs are in some cases bred to accentuate the characteristics that enable them to inflict severe injuries.

Others insist it is the owners rather than the dogs who represent a danger to society and say a breeding ban is unjustified.

Copyright 2000 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.




Horny Toad




------------------
NRA Life Member
SAF Member
GOA Member
 
*sigh*

It'll be Dobies and Rotties next. Followed by Mastiffs. Bullmastiffs, Bulldogs, Chows, Akitas, Wolfhounds...

Anyone for an attack-trained Toy Poodle?

:(LawDog
 
The key phrase here is "breeds deemed to be dangerous." Doesn't matter if they are or not, just whether some moron with a title says they are.

I wonder if PETA will come to their defense. Nah. They're too interested in making a politically correct name for themselves.
 
This may be a silly question, and probably doesn't apply in Germany anyway, but, in the US, how would they prove in court that your dog is a pit bull? I mean, with no dangerous pistol grip or bayonet lug, even if they KNOW, how could they PROVE?
 
I don't have time to write a real detailed response, but I must disagree with the tone of the opinions so far expressed. Where the analogy of gun vs. dog falls is that the dog is not an inanimate hunk of metal which requires an operator. It is a wild animal that has been (sometimes just barely) domesticated as a pet for humans. As such, that animal has a mind of its own, and will sometimes get out of the owners control.

I agree that owners who let this happen should be prosecuted very harshly for criminal negligence, but you must admit that when you read about a dog mauling/killing, what % of the time is it a pit bull or rottie - I'd say 75%, easy. That's gotta say something about either the breed or the owners the breed attracts. I'll carry the analogy a step further -

"Guns don't kill people, dogs do"

PS : there is no constitutional precedent protecting the right to keep and bear dogs, for militia, self-defense, hunting, curio collecting, or otherwise. :D
 
[rant]
Jack M, “... how would they prove in court that your dog is a pit bull?”

The government does not have to prove anything at all. They have lackeys to
do that for them. For example, in Comal County, Texas, the County
Commissioners have outlawed “wolves”. If any veterinarian states your dog
may be part wolf, they will take your dog, using whatever force may be
required, and kill the dog.

The whole thing smacks of the political pseudo-science of the Nazis
determining who had (or had no) traces of Aryan blood.

Interestingly enough, our Sheriff tried to force the Commissioners into defining
a wolf more accurately and was ignored. So far, no physical force (against
dog/wolf owners) has been necessary - but the threat is there. So “citizens”
simply have taken these “dangerous beasts” to more sane surroundings.

Outlawing animals which show no tendency to do harm because similar
animals have caused harm in the past is just as tyrannical as offensive
stereotypes of LEOs, teen-agers, Jews, rednecks, “gun nuts”, etc. etc.

My Commissioner is a politically correct sheeple who has felt my wrath and has
lost my vote. The other sheeple of my district, greatly outnumbering those
who appreciate freedom, support this tyranny with predictable, slobbering
accolades.

Generations of Texans weep as liberty dies.

------

RH,

“... there is no constitutional precedent protecting the right to keep and
bear dogs, for militia, self-defense, hunting, curio collecting, or otherwise.”

Gee RH, don’t forget dobermans and German shepherds. Why would a citizen
want such violent dogs. Only the police and the military need such things.
(Echo, echo.)

(rant edited by Dennis)

The government has no business in my wallet, my home, my family, or my
doghouse.

[/rant (temporarily)]
-----

Somewhat later...

As I understand it, the Constitution gives the federal government certain limited powers - all other power being given to the states or to the people. If that is the case, the federal government should be forced to work within those limitations.

State and local laws can not violate the Constitution but have much greater leeway because they address "everything else". That's good because voters can have a quicker effect locally than nationally.

Unfortunately, citizens seem eager these days to cast off the responsibilities of freedom and liberty.

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited June 28, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited June 28, 2000).]
 
Another nail in the coffin of this incredible breed.....I wish it had never been brought to the media's attention 30 years ago, the dogs would only be owned by serious dog people who know what they have and how to handle them......30 years ago you never heard of the sorta of heart rending maulings you hear of today.....its not a breed for everyone, and the ones most capable of utilizing and understanding it are persecutted if that try to utilize the dogs in the manner of the old time breeder. As a result of them not being able to test their stock in the pit, there are dogs out their that should not be bred that are being bred. Two facts most often not understood by the new "pitbull" owner, very rarely was a people biter allowed to live, unless it was an exceptional pit dog, and I mean exceptional, it was put down and not allowed to breed. This was for the dog persons saftey as well, they were in the pit with the dog and they could not have an injured dog bite them as they attempted to help or administer medical attention to it. Most of these tested dogs were of smaller stature and not these behemoths that exist today...50lbs was considered huge back then, with the average weighing in in the 30lb range.
Breeding takes a long time to get right and its easy to ruin a line of dogs by breeding without testing or with out regards to what properties your trying to instill or breed out, its not just throwing your couch potato in with joe blow's back yard pooch and expecting to get a quality animal...lol...and more importantly crosses with different breed's are another subject alltogether, if an ignorant person is willing to breed a bulldog with a people aggressive breed you have a nightmare on your hands...normally what you wind up with is a dog that has the people aggressive tendencies and the physcial ability of the bulldog, and of course the mind is less than the mind of a human two year old.
Ive read alot over the last several years of "courage" that various people have with regards to their rights, well, that little well bred and tested bulldog will takes it death rather than quit in the fight---unlike what most folks believe not all bulldogs are like that, most wont be that game and those are the ones that wont be bred by the dog fighters once they have shown that they will quit, they are killed normally. You see the game bred dog is not a people biter, but he will kill another pet dog or pet animal that he can get hold of...once again its not a breed for everyone, I think the people who use this breed as a weapon on humans should be prosecuted. They are working dogs and as such need knowledgable committed owners, not Mr. Macho. Another problem with this breed is that they are incredibly athletic, and strive to please their owners, they are quite trainable.....I personally dont like to hear of people using these dogs as personal protection dogs....but there are those that will use them that way, and when that dog injuries some one, it becomes the breeds fault........on this issue reason is normally thrown window and emoition rules. How do you get control of this situation now?....fubsy.
 
In addition, the whole "dangerous breed" argument seems to be flawed. Yes, you always READ ABOUT pits and rotties, that is because the media is in a feeding frenzy. One price of a free press is that you can't trust them! I don't have the figures handy but I'll try and find them again, but pits were NOT overrepresented in actual serious injury attacks, and if you just go with all bites by breed, they fall off the botton of the scale. Also, I am old enough to have seen the "ban it" crowd switch breeds several times. When I was a kid (60s) they wanted to outlaw german shepherds (called police dogs, so no one but police should have them), 70s saw Dobies as the threat. Is it just that those breeds were popular at the time, or is it some kind of divide (by breed)and conquer program? I have heard of the anti wolf campaigns, a letter from a friendly vet, calling the dog something else, say an Shepherd/Akita mix, has helped several people in court.
 
I have two Jindo dogs, and legend has it that this breed is half Asian wolf.
Man...I don't want to move to Comal County, Texas, as my dogs and I may wind up in deep kimchi. :(

------------------
"Lead, follow or get the HELL out of the way."
 
I agree completly with fusby. This is one breed that needs to be tested. I know that fighting dogs is a crime but the APBT needs to be tested. Most people have only heard about these "tests" I have only seen one and afterwards the care these dogs recieve after a match is equal to an emergency room. The APBT is one breed that I trust with my children. The bad press associated with the APBT is brought on by the ever hungry need to sell papers and airtime...I have seen the news stories and 75% of the time its not even a APBT but some other cannine that the victim thought was an APBT. You are more likley to be bitten by a cockerspaniel that an APBT or even a Rottie! So think about that dog you own and look up which dogs are on the top ten bitters list.
 
Lake, the difference is that if a 10-pound Spaniel grabs hold, I could punt him across the room. Not so with a 60-lb bull.

I understand the whole "freedom & rsponsibility" thing, but why do you think we regulate/outlaw rattlesnakes ? wolverines ? cougars ?

Would you welcome a neighbor who kept mountain lions on the other side of a chain link fence from your kids ?

Again I'll say, these are sometimes only mildly domesticated animals that have their own will and proclivity to get beyond the control of even the most well-meaning and responsible owners. And they don't come with safeties or loaded-chamber indicators to tell you when they're about to 'go off'.
 
There is no such thing as a bad dog breed or a dangerous dog breed. German Shepards have a habit of turning bad if improperly bred. So do Dobermans. In my area, house pets who form packs while their owners are away and go "wilding" are the most dangerous types of animals. They are all mutts.

The reason PBs and rotties make the news is for the same reason that "assault weapons" make the news: political agendas and the desire for headlines. Plus, these are the breeds that scumbags often get to fulfill their tough guy image.
 
The pit bulls that you see on TV are bred/owned/trained by jerks.
The ancestor of the APBT and the American Staffordshire Terrier was the most popular farm dog in America during the 19th century. They are very human-friendly by nature. Unfortunately, some jerks realized that they could abouse the dogs' power and agility for fighting.
The same five pit pull attacks you've seen on Fox TV's America's Dangerous Pets for the last ten years are not representative of the breed.
If some jackass trains his dog as an attack dog, yes he should be held responsible and if the dog attacks, it must be destroyed. However, banning a specific breed based on just a few attacks (probably representative of fewer than 1% of the entire breed population) is ludicrous.
Are they, too, doing this to "save just one child?" These attacks that lead to the death of a child are tragic, but this law will not solve the problem, it will just eliminate one of the symptoms.
Any large mixed breed with the jaw power of a Rottie or Pit Bull can do the same amount of damage. Don't blame the breed, blame the individual owners.

[This message has been edited by CindyH (edited June 30, 2000).]
 
Random thoughts:

Replace every instance of "dog", "fighting dog", "dog owners", et al with firearms-related terminology and you have exactly a story we've all read too many times.

My "attack dachshunds" are actually about as dangerous as the Easter Bunny (Shhh. Don't tell them; they don't know they're only 4" tall.). Oh, and they're a German breed. Originally bred to go after a badger in its own den and drag it out - doesn't that make them something of a dangerous, vicious breed as well?

:rolleyes:

------------------
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36
"An armed society is a polite society."
Robert Heinlein
"Power corrupts. Absolute power - is kinda cool!"
Fred Reed
 
I remember reading somewhere that, where the breed could be identified, the most common to bite and send you to the emergency room was: The cocker spaniel. Followed by the Lab. "dangerous" LOOKING breeds fall way down on the list, but stupid policy based on looks is nothing new, is it? Because these breeds are the #1 and #2 dog breeds, there is no hue and cry about banning them, is there?. I'd wager that ten times (or more) children are killed by lightning than by dogs, why not force every homeowner to install lightning rods to their house? "For the children" of course.
 
A lot of the problem with what they call the "assualt breeds" is that people get them cause they look tough. They then encourage or allow the dog to have a more fierce and nasty attitude. Dogs are largly like kids, if you allow them to act like little jerks, they will!

My ex's cousin raised pittbulls. He started teaching them when they were pups that humans were the boss. He had those dogs so that if he yelled "STOP!" when they were in mid-air, they hung there. :D If any showed tendencies to being aggressive with people, he put them down. He didn't have the attitude that said 'My dog is tough. Do you like the way he growls at you?' On the other hand, my own cousin has had several dogs, and each has gotten too mean to keep. Why? He thinks it's "cool" when his dogs intimidate people. He allows and encourages it. He had one dog jump the fence and attack the neighbor lady just for walking down her own driveway. And this guy is on the K9 sheriff unit in the next county. I never said my relatives were bright. :rolleyes:

------------------
Refuse to be a "helpless" victim.
Knowing Your Rights WAGC in Indiana
 
"Lake, the difference is that if a 10-pound Spaniel grabs hold, I could punt him across the room. Not so with a 60-lb bull."


I have yet to see a 10-pound spaniel!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top