Just came from watching the movie "A Dog's Way Home"
Fundamental to the plot is a Denver law requiring pit bulls off owner's property to be captured and released to the owner after paying a fine. Second offense and the pit bull dog is to be killed. "Pit Bull" is defined as any dog which three animal control agents declare to be a pit bull. The dog star of the movie is supposed to be a mixed breed with what is clearly a bit bull mother, but the star herself looks very unlike a pit bull to me--more like a black-and-tan hound.
The villian is an animal control agent who would probably call a long-haired Chihuahua a pit bull. ( there is one of these in the movie. its name is 'crazy hair' but it never comes near Denver)
Anybody have actual knowledge of the real rules in Denver about this stuff?
The movie? It is ok is you have to see every dog movie (like me). Has some good shots of scenery in Colorado but nothing really special. Otherwise, wait for it to be free on cable tv.
snailgate
Dangerous Animal Rules
-
- Posts: 4050
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
- Location: Near Bear, Delaware
-
- Posts: 4050
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
- Location: Near Bear, Delaware
Re: Dangerous Animal Rules
I have read it, and the movie did not exaggerate it much.
Snailgate
Snailgate
Re: Dangerous Animal Rules
It is pretty ridiculous; a ban based solely on appearance of the animal and not on temperament or any other factor.
- MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 20702
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: Dangerous Animal Rules
Word of advice: read your homeowner insurance policy very carefully, particularly the exclusion of dogs under liability clauses. Chow, anyone?
The Denver "appearance" language is designed to provide a necessary avenue to negate the "but my dog is not a pure-bred X" argument. They are not banned by their appearance; they are presumed questionable. The owner can demonstrate that the appearance is deceptive in individual cases and that the dog is not a cross-breed killer.
The Denver "appearance" language is designed to provide a necessary avenue to negate the "but my dog is not a pure-bred X" argument. They are not banned by their appearance; they are presumed questionable. The owner can demonstrate that the appearance is deceptive in individual cases and that the dog is not a cross-breed killer.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: Dangerous Animal Rules
Serial killer BTK was the compliance officer (AKA dog catcher) in Park City, the suburb directly north of Wichita. There are at least three instances where he picked up dogs that HE deemed dangerous. They were not returned to their owners, all of whom said their dogs were as docile as can be.
We also had a local officer who shot at, and missed, a vicious chihuahua inside a house while investigating a suspected domestic issue. The bullet ricocheted off of the tile floor, and a fragment hit a girl above her eye. He no longer works for the city which has been sued over the incident. In his defense, it was a small target.
First question on the application for a police officer position: Are you an a$$hole?
Second question: If not, can you learn?
We also had a local officer who shot at, and missed, a vicious chihuahua inside a house while investigating a suspected domestic issue. The bullet ricocheted off of the tile floor, and a fragment hit a girl above her eye. He no longer works for the city which has been sued over the incident. In his defense, it was a small target.
First question on the application for a police officer position: Are you an a$$hole?
Second question: If not, can you learn?
A friend of Doc's, one of only two B-29 bombers still flying.
Re: Dangerous Animal Rules
No, first would be, "Does the thought of murdering an innocent person in cold blood repulse you?" If so, no need to go any further.