My state is currently proposing 5 or more breeds of dogs to not be
allowed in Minnesota.

Some including Bull dogs, Dovermin pinchers, Rotriellers (sp), etc


What are you thoughts?

I realize that not all these dogs are agressive but elimating these
breeds within the state would reduce many dog attacks.

Whats your opinion?

if a law like that was to pass you would just end up with the equivilant
of dog bootlegging. people are gonna do what theyre gonna do.

I think if dog owners would take more care of their dogs not that much
would happen. It's mostly the way the dogs are treated that makes them
aggressive.

I dont see the point. It would elimate the (pure breed) bull dogs,
rotweillers, pinchers, and wolf hybreds...but that would only cause
breeders to not register their dogs as "purebred".

Look at all the mixed breeds...how could they pursue that? One could
argue their dog was "mixed".

I think they should focus more on putting the sex offenders and the rest
of the criminals on a f**king island and let them kill each other and
the money used to supprt them should go toward more important things.
I'm not saying that it is O.k for the dogs to be bad but most of them
were taught to be bad from ignorant humans.
Sheeeesh
You'd think the idiots making the laws would have better things to think
of outlawing than a dog breed.
And when they are done picking their noses over that one they should
consider getting back to the real world before something else important
escapes them.

HERE! HERE! STAY...BRAVO!

i hate laws like these because just about any dog can be trained to
fight or kill just like naturally aggressive dogs can be the safest,
sweetest pets anyone could have. i think that the laws should target
the owners of the pets rather than banning the pets themselves.

Thanks heatherrae but it seems they are all so afraid to say
something.Who votes those s**ts in.
I mean do these people actually say when they are young I want to grow
up to be an idiot and pretend that I know what's going on in the world.
Politicians and whether ppl are the only ones I know that get paid to do
their job wrong.

Yes I agree that this law is silly. I think the laws should be focused
on containment of high risk dogs...such as using leashes, fences, and
posting signs at the residence. I think if more owners did this it
would prevent many dog attacks.

About dog owners...

My family had a dovermin pincher. We love animals and treated the dog
very fairly, lovingly...yet the dog still showed agressive behavior. I
can not believe it was caused by our treatment of the dog, but its
instinct of the breed. It never harm us (family members) but anyone
outside of our family was not safe.

I have 2 pits and they are great with kids and have never and I know
would never ever hurt a child. They run and play with them they ride
them hug them and love them and my dogs have never made a peep toward
them. But if someone tried to hurt any of the children (not including
another child)or me but another adult they would tear them to shreds. My
black one is mouthy but I don't back down from her so she lays on the
floor at my feet(kinda to say sorry) and then she will do as she is
told. Another thing they love other dogs, my cat and my snake. But if
the other dog is too aggresive they will stand their ground.
Here in NY their are laws dogs have their own park and must be leashed
and or fenced never out running around or they take them and they all
have to be licsened.
It's the human not the gun(DOG)

Minnesota: The State Where Nothing Is Allowed.
Mayor Soucheray

I'm ok with keeping the dogs away from the people they might bite.
Trouble is that if you have dogs they eventually get out. I knew a guy
who had one that ripped the boards off the fence with his teeth, then it
just went all over the neighborhood. Fortunately nobody made the dog
mad, it was big as a bear and tended to growl a lot.

Yeah, outlaw them as far as I'm concerned. One maimed child in a city is
enough for me to outlaw the whole breed. Tough if it was just one bad
owner who cared for his dog wrong. You can never know which neighbor you
have will teach his dogs to attack. For that matter some dogs are just
prone to be dangerous. You can find them by breed.

Dogs are not as important as the people they attack. No way.

It will leave many pets homeless. If a person has to give up their
animal because of its breed, more than likely they will just let it run
loose instead of the other option which is death.

Well that's a good point too. What do you do with the people who already
own the forbidden breeds?

They either move away or have to get rid of their animal, atleast in
some cities in kentucky.

One of the perks of living in the backwoods is the freedom from city
ordinances. A state ordinance does make that different though. An
ordinance put into effect like that about dogs does seem dogmatic. You
may be contending with the moral majority or a majority that imposes its
will like a king does. One would suppose that they would have a good
reason for this total disregard for dog owners who do take good care of
their pets. It would seem like there would be checks and balances
instead of a totarian rule.

home owners insurance has dog clauses also...
if you have certain breeds...no insurance...

I love animals, so I agree with this law. Dangerous animals should have
to be licensed to people who know how to care for them.

as long as there is some kind of regulations or license for the owner.
saying that this person has the knowledge in order to deal with these
kinds of breeds it's all good.

more freedoms given up for a false state of safety

when will the people ever learn

if you want to make a dog mean it will just be a
different breed

st Bernard - german shepard - great dane

then what

outlaw those breeds next

people need to wise up

and replace those that want to take away those freeedoms that are left