Saturday, December 12, 2015

BSL Collapse 3.1 - Why, indeed?

Commenter Dog People Are Nuts (DPAN) made a great comment the other day.  It was in response to this comment on the last page:

Maybe they aren't 'real dogs' though. If pit bulls are successfully banned, it will be easier to ban the next mauler.

Divide and conquer ;)

DPAN's response to that was [with my comments in bold]:

It's not tackling the root of the problem. Why have pitbulls been allowed to even get this out of control? Because they are dogs. Would mutant cats or budgies have been allowed to kill over 20 people per year with impunity? [in a word...NOPE] Hell no; a single death would cause a massive outcry and the breed would be outlawed and forced into extinction.

If BSL is passed, don't expect it to be enforced. Pits are banned where I live [where is that] and I see them all the time (and yes, I've reported them when I know where they live). Why? Because if no one has the guts to enforce even the most basic dog laws, no one would be meeean enough to deprive someone of their BEST FRIEND doggie woggie and then have it put down just because it's the wrong breed, which it can't help! Aww, look, it's wagging its tail!  [This sums the core issue to perfection]

Some of these bans wouldn't be necessary if the dog laws that already existed were sufficiently enforced: Leash laws, containment laws, laws pertaining to declared dangerous dogs (eg. muzzling), breeding laws, licensing laws, number if permitted pets laws, bans on individuals from having dogs/pets. If these aren't enforced, why would BSL?  [because the laws of DOG are above those of MAN]

The above addresses the core issue:  We are expected to worship each and every dog, and to put Dog's interests above all other.  Indeed, WHY would BSL restrictions be considered by us mere mortal humans?

I live in the U.S. State of Florida.  Florida has "pre-emption" laws, thereby prohibiting local entities from imposing ANY sort of breed specific legislation.  As much as I love Florida, I consider this complete BS.

Certain cities were allowed to "grandfather in" their pre-existing BSL restrictions.  This includes the city of Miami and a few other places.   

Now, Miami has been host to TWO DBRF's within about a year of each other:

Devon Jade killed by Pit Bulls.   Consider:  Pit bulls are not allowed in Miami-Dade County.  And, this:  Yep, look like full-blown SHIT BULLS to me!

Carmen Reigata killed by dogs (pit "mixes"  wink, wink).

Lets crunch some numbers:

- Miami / Dade USA:  5.5 million population.
- United States:   322 million population.

DBRF's in Miami - 1 per year the past 2 years.
DBRF's in USA - 42 per year, as per 2014 statistics.

So, statistically:

You have a 1 in 5.5 million chance of being killed by a dog in Miami.

You have a 1 in 7.6 million chance of being killed by a dog in the greater USA.

From that we can determine that, currently, Miami people have an above average probability of being killed by a dog than your average American.   This is in spite of Miami's Pit Bull ban!

See how easy it is to play with numbers?   I can set the goalposts anywhere I want.  I can "prove" that pit bulls kill less than 1 person every 5 years if I go back to, say, 5000 BC!   In any case, statistically, I just destroyed Miami's pit bull restriction even though I find it perfectly legitimate.

In any case, as DPAN pointed out, BSL will wash out in the face of the overall dog culture.  The key to a pit bull (or any sort of doggie restriction) is to FIRST undermine the canine supremacy movement.  When that is done, THEN and only THEN will the BSL restriction take hold.

Have a great weekend!


  1. Tossing the odds aside as it was stated. If the common housecat attacked a toddler for breathing cats would be slotted for extinction. It would only take one. It would be national news for weeks. Dog kills someone and you only find it through sites that scour the news to keep track.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. I favor BSL. But not the legislation. It takes too long to get enacted, and, as the post notes, it is often full of loopholes. Instead, I favor breed-specific LITIGATION.

    1. Which raises the question: Who gets sued? And, ultimately, who will pay up?

      The answer, my friends, is the insurance industry. Once the lawsuit tidal wave starts rolling their way, you'll see two more forms of BSL: Breed-Specific Losses (of the monetary kind) and Breed-Specific Limitations.

      And the Limitations won't be pretty. Picture someone from your insurer coming to your residence, demanding to see what your dog looks like, and photographing it. If the dog looks like a pit bull or a pit bull mix, well, no insurance for you.

    2. YQN, considering the line that a pit bull is just like any other dog I expect to see the reverse. Monster premiums for anyone who has a dog. In the name of fairness and not racially profiling a dog breed all dog owners will be heaped into the same pot. The payout for one pit or other nonsense breed of killer will be equal to or more than 100 bites of the common mutant. All it will take is another stellar year like this one to jack the rates of ALL dog owners . landlords etc to the sky high marker. A new kind of mile high club. That is when you will see the divide and conquer. You will see fewer and fewer home owners able to afford one pit let alone their unholy pack.
      I do agree we're going to see a more aggressive approach with insurance coverage where dogs must be microchipped and all dogs on the policy identified. The term lab mix is already a red flag. One thing that should be included in any home inspection for insurance is adequate fencing for the dog in the policy. Failure to fence or maintain or having an Animal Control report generated to the homeowner insurance just like a traffic ticket can be to your car insurance would settle a lot of problems quickly. it's more than obvious that the new breed of animal welfare workers are NOT going to enforce the laws put in place to protect humans, other pets or livestock. Or my neighbors dumb dogs wouldn't be standing out on the paved road causing cars to swerve and stop for them daily. But the bean counters at the insurance companies can make an impact.

  4. Breed specific litigation is a problem for two reasons.

    First, because the financial cost falls onto the victim, and that is assuming that the defendant has assets and you can find an attorney willing to take your case. Even with assets, it can be impossible to find an attorney to take your case. In addition to the financial burden, it takes much longer for a civil case to make its way through the system. This keeps the victim in limbo. The courts are also often full of loopholes.

    The second problem with breed specific litigation is the fact that more often than not, the idiots are judgment proof. We see pit bull owners violating even the most basic mandatory laws like licensing and vaccinations. I see no reason to believe that they will suddenly comply with mandatory insurance. And no attorney will take a case when the pit bull does not have an insurance policy to tap, unless of course animal control can somehow be held liable.

    This is bad situation with no perfect solution and why I encourage anyone who is physically and legally able to carry deadly force to do so.

  5. I am right now dealing with the judgment proof idiot with no car insurance that parked on top of my car in an otherwise empty parking lot. I can either sue for the 250 that my insurance doesn't pay or pay to file and get a judgment I can't collect. The same will end up being true of the idiot dog owners living next door that I just got done calling AC, dispatch and wrote another letter to my county commissioner. Even if I file for harassment, which is what this is and get a judgment they don't have anything to take. And AC after 35 plus calls is still refusing to uphold the county laws.
    Their dogs are now running freely on the paved road causing traffic to swerve. The dogs won't move. I have been yelled at to get my dogs out of the road. They of course aren't my dogs. When they cause an accident or fender damage the dog owners are unlikely to have homeowners and will of course leave the mess to the victim to clean up and pay for. The agreement was they would leave the bark collars on these dogs. Instead they go away and leave the things loose and free to carry on all night. I gave dispatch the owners phone number.
    Either they are churching buddies with this AC officer. Family friend or he's simply one more AC officer that is more concerned about the dogs rights than the humans. I don't care.
    My neighbors may find themselves in the middle of a big harassment lawsuit in the near future. You can attach a judgment. It will ruin their credit and background checks for years to come.
    Our county describes a loose dog as public health nuisance and a menace. Add to this anyone who actually cared about their pets would not let them run loose and play in traffic.

    1. "My neighbors may find themselves in the middle of a big harassment lawsuit in the near future. You can attach a judgment. It will ruin their credit and background checks for years to come."

      chances are, their credit is already trashed or they don't care. i recently discovered that attaching a judgment to someone's home is absolutely meaningless unless they sell it. otherwise, the judgment expires, in ten years, i think. the plaintiff can file to have it extended, for another ten years, i think, but if the nutter doesn't want to sell, well then, i guess it sucks to be you. this is a fucked up situation all around.

      "Our county describes a loose dog as public health nuisance and a menace. Add to this anyone who actually cared about their pets would not let them run loose and play in traffic."

      maybe the better cause of action is to file a lawsuit against the county govt for failing to do their job. just a thought. another thought, it could difficult to find an attorney who wants to take that on.

      sorry eileen. hopefully someone will be fiddling with their phone and turn pibble into a pancake.

    2. I had an attachment I renew on the drunk that parked under my truck at a red light. When we sue it will be her parents who own the land and let this nuisance situation go on. Of course we will include the daughter and her husband. They are trying to start a business. We are now at 2.5 solid hours of yapping in a county with almost 4000 sq miles and minimal law enforcement.
      I just rather sarcastically pointed out that if someone called in a dog being shot by the neighbors for barking there would be a swat team here in 10 minutes flat. I'm not going to do that. It would only visit more misery on us. And make the dog owners the victims

  6. Thanks for the shout out! :D I live in Australia, where American Pit Bull Terriers are among the banned breeds but the synonymous American Staffordshire Terrier is not. Dumbest loophole ever, and apparently police are aware of this but turn a blind eye when pit owners use it; can't kill someone's best friend!

    The flaws with breed-specific litigation that I see are that the current legal system seems to allow pit owners to just get away with their dog killing or maiming someone if they have no money and no insurance. It actually seems like a disincentive for pitbull owners to obtain insurance for their dogs. They should really be thrown in prison in those cases—well, ALL cases, but when the pit owners are merely charged with a large fine, "I can't afford it" should NOT be acceptable—and changing the legal system is taking us back to legislation change.

    1. Being judgment proof and having your dog cause mayhem is a get out of jail free card.

    2. Don't be too swayed by the "judgment-proof" argument. One of my friends is a personal injury attorney. He won a six-figure judgment against the insurer of a property owner. The tenants had a pit bull that attacked a toddler and did major damage to the child's face.

      And, yes, the tenants were "judgment-proof." No assets, no insurance. Well, that didn't stop my friend. Uh-uh. Not for a minute.

    3. Yes YQN. You have to knock on every door so to speak. It's also why you need to know who actually owns the property someone is living in and put them on notice or include them in complaints. Because as we all know law enforcement is near worthless even after someone is attacked or killed.

    4. Indeed, prison is the perfect place for those people. In fact, people like that are the reason we NEED prisons!

    5. YQN, that's great if you live in a state where you can go after the property owner. that is not always an option. it is not an option in my state and many others.

      a few years ago a wheel chair bound man and his service dog were seriously mauled by a pack of mutants belonging to deadbeat renters. i tried to help him hire an attorney. i contacted every attorney within 50 miles that was in good standing with the bar on the avvo website, probably close to 4 dozen attorneys. only 2 bothered to even respond and they informed me that they could not go after the property owner. that state btw was indiana.

    6. Most laws regarding dogs are based on them possibly biting or being a barking nuisance. Very few if any are geared to make dog owners of the people that allow tenants to have dogs liable when they maim and kill. there are actual cases where pits , rots and other worthless breeds have been returned to the owners with the victims living in close proximity because the dog had never shown aggression before. But of course now the owners are on notice.

    7. My lawyer-friend went after the property owner's insurer. That's where he found the $500k that he won for his client.

    8. It's always encouraging to hear of the victim being compensated.

    9. "My lawyer-friend went after the property owner's insurer. That's where he found the $500k that he won for his client."

      i understood that. i was saying that pursuing the property owner for the deeds of his tenant is not an option in every state.

    10. I'm glad that justice can be won in some cases! The number of lawsuits against dangerous dog owners is skyrocketing, and even though they mostly aren't won, all of them seem to be gradually sending a message. I just see it as only one part of a solution, especially when so many victims cannot obtain justice this way (it's sad to hear about victims being awarded "symbolic judgements"). Usually it's because there must be substantial proof that the owner had prior knowledge the dogs were dangerous. One attack should be enough to prosecute, with prior knowledge simply heightening the punishment.

  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. I rarely delete a comment but Spamphenn's comment was pure spam, and the link likely contained a virus.

  8. Late-breaking news, and it isn't good.

    1. Oh great, now the US Constitution applies to dogs and dogs are entitled to human legal defenses such as "self defense" and "provocation". Of course, Padi is just the mascot for a move to rewrite Florida dog laws, which is already in process.

    2. Indeed, and that is why I endlessly rip on the animal "rights" movement. Their social engineering project has finally paid off: Now, dog=person.

    3. Another child was killed in Miami-Dade. The details:

    4. YQN: Thanks for writing. The Anti-BSL folks will be dancing in the blood of this one!

      New Meme: Ban Pit Bulls and be killed by a pit bull! This works in multiple ways on multiple levels.

      Happy Holidays All!