"Nude" Skater Hits Rockefeller Ice
Straphanger Who Pulled Emergency Brake Comes Forward
Should MTV's Jersey Shore Be Cancelled?
Adam Lambert Says He's A Performer, Not A Babysitter
Protest To Keep 9/11 Trials Out Of NYC
The NYC Housing Authority's decision to ban dogs over 25 pounds and certain breeds, including pit bulls, Doberman pinschers, and Rotterwilers—and Boston terriers and Shar Peis (puppy pictured)— has relieved some while riled up others. A LaGuardia Houses resident and owner of a miniature Doberman told the NY Times, "I think it’s great. In my building there’s a pit bull. He looks at Dobie like he wants to eat him," but others say it's "dog profiling that unfairly singles out three entire breeds and treats owners of those dogs as potential problem tenants." The ASPCA said the policy "discriminates against responsible dog guardians on both counts," and the American Kennel Club notes the City Council acknowledged (in Admin. Code Section 27-2009.1) pets are kept "for reasons of safety and companionship." The AKC says dogs passing its Canine Good Citizen program should be able to stay and offers to help "develop a model pet policy." The list of banned breeds is here (PDF, p. 11). Also, all dogs in NY State are supposed to be licensed and all dogs in NYC must wear their licenses when in public.
Mixed Reactions For Dog Restrictions At Housing Projects
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (31) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Newsmap
Contribute
Latest Tip:
Chinese government-owned construction company wins $100 million NYC Subway contract
http://www.china
[more]
The dogs shouldn't suffer, the owners should.
Residing above Central Park in Manhattan, this is a very good thing despite the political incorrectness of the ban specifying certain breeds (Boston Terrier, really?). Many owners near the project blocks don't use leashes on their full grown Pits and Rots and they look at people, children, and other animals (like my dog) as if they are bait or food.
Admittedly, I am torn between worrying that Animal Control and the ASPCA will be overwhelmed by abandons as well.
"Many owners near the project blocks don't use leashes on their full grown Pits and Rots and they look at people, children, and other animals (like my dog) as if they are bait or food."
Just like their owners, except the dogs are more well-behaved.
like the old saying goes... "if you can't stand the rules, get out of the projects."
like the old saying goes... "if you can't stand the rules, get out of the projects."
Why anyone would want a large dog here in the city is beyond me. Dogs should have running space and be free to come and go. Cooping a dog up in a tiny apartment then taking it out to crap on and pee the sidewalk once a day can't be much of a life for a dog.
People with Dogs in the City are the Dumbest on Earth. I agree with you. Its Torturing That Poor Animalk. No wonder he snaps & kills little Kids.
Why would someone in the projects want a gas guzzling SUV when they have nowhere to park it and would otherwise be able to afford a real apartment for the cost of a lease, rims, and gas? This is a group without logic past "The rappers have it, so I should too."
I find that city dogs in general are better socialized and better behaved that most suburban dogs. People who get a dog and then leave it in the back yard all day are much worse than us city dwellers who take our dogs on long walks in the park and to dog parks for off-leash play time with other dogs. Having any kind of dog works in the city, country or suburbia, it all comes down to how the people care for the dog.
True
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG3r3wH1vNk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB1eQrCBw0k
LOL, funny video.
Taking a dog out once a day is not enough. And there is also no excuse for not obeying the leash law.
But once again, all this is the fault of bad owners, and nothing to do with any particular breed of dog. Let's not blame these wonderful animals, who desperately need homes, when it is bad owners who give innocent dogs a bad name.
Any good owner takes its dog out for walks three times a day, on a leash (unless in an enclosed space like a dog run). Once a day is not enough. My husband and I work full-time and until recently, were living in an apartment. No matter how tired/busy we are, we always make time to give our wonderful pit bull three good walks a day. He is wonderfully behaved and very happy.
I agree with this ban! There is one a**hat in my building (i don't live in the projects but I want to vent) who has a pit and does not keep him on a lease when out in public. I. HATE. HIM.
One day they were in the building foyer. Before going inside, I asked him to put his dog on the leash. He says he's not going to bite me. I say well if he does, I will sue you, and I assume if you can't afford a leash you can't afford my medical bills. Needless to say, he cursed at me. I think it's safe to say I won't get a basket of wine and cheese in Christmas.
Oh, and I'm not anti-pit bulls...My parents had the sweetest pit bull. Like children, dogs are a product of their environment.
Not according to the CDC report.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf
The CDC -- Center for Disease Control -- is funded and was founded with one basic mission -- to eliminate animals and pests from the city. That is what they get paid to do. The CDC is the same organization that is trying to get every urban animal from squirrels to pigeons to starlings and even raccoons categorized as "pests" in order for them to lose any legal protections which are written into law. You refer to the CDC???? You must be kidding.
I think in the long run, this may be good for the breed. I love pitbulls, which is why it pains me to see the way they are treated by some of these people. If we can get a large number of the worst raised animals off the streets, it will only help the reputation of the breed.
Humans are the problem. Ban the breed.
It definitely works both ways. Some people treat their dog as a baby, while some people keep the dog in the yawn 24/7. For any large breed of dog they don't belong in an apartment or small house.
Genes is genes.
Breed an animal over generations to herd sheep, be fluffy, flush game or kill other dogs it will tend to do so. Train all you want, but the hardwiring is there and will show itself under the right conditions.
Any dog breed can be aggresive or vicious. The bottom line is, if a dog is not properly raised and trained, it has the opportunity to becaome an aggresive dog. Unfortunatley, many breeds have been abused and have gained an aggresive reputation. I have known some Dachsunds, Poodles, and Chihuahas that have been more aggresive than Pitt Bulls or Rottweilers. It is a shame that a whole breed is placed in a category because of irresponsible dog owners.
I'm confused. Why would NYCHA ban Boston Terriers? They generally weigh less than 25 pounds and they are not vicious by any means. This just creates more stigma and hatred of dogs.
I also agree with rodney in that City dogs get a better deal than dogs in the suburbs since most homeowners think leaving their dog in the yard all day is good deal. Dogs need to walk around (on leash, of course) and get exercise outside of fences.
Dogs do not belong in apartments, especially large mean ones.
Nobody with a criminal record should be allowed to own a pitbull either.
Hell, little tiny dogs are very nasty and bite also! All dogs have the potential to bite! Banning breeds is insane.
Why should pets be allowed in city housing projects at all? I used to have a dog, each time I moved I had one heck of a time finding an apartment where the landlord would even allow her. From experience I say that many NYC buildings are "no dogs allowed." So what's the big deal? Why even bother listing acceptable breeds, or banning the more powerful ones? If dogs have caused such a problem in the projects, then the rule should be, across the board, "no dogs allowed in NYC projects."
genius.
you're totally right! my building is "no pets" and i pay ten times more than the lovely folks in the projects down the street... only to be told what i can't do here. i never thought of it that way... how reasonable and sane of you to point out!
Sorry if I repeat what might have been posted but I don't have the emotional space to read what should be a no brainer discussion. It's not the breed, it's the deed. Any dog that is abused or tortured into becoming vicious out of it's own desperate attempt at self -defense is not at fault here. It is the criminal and brutal human who should be banned from our cities and our apartments. Banning dogs that are more over 40 pounds is also descrimination. If city dwellers in non-public housing can own dogs that are 40+ pounds, then it is unequal and descriminatory to forbid city dwellers who don't live in public housing from having those same dogs. It is not the breed. It's the deed. I have a 55 pound pit bull. She was abandoned at 10 months by a family who was disturbed by her growing from a cute little chocolate brown puppy into a 50 pound youngster. My pit bull greets children by getting down on all fours and crawling toward them slowly and tenderly. I have treated her with kindness and she has responded with growing into a loving and gentle dog. My own dog is just one example. It is the guardian (there are many who object to the word, "owner" which resonates with concepts of slavery and owning living beings as if they are property) that is responsible, not the animal. I feel for people who live in public housing with people whose dogs have been trained to be attack dogs. That is a nightmare. But the fault is with the owners, not the dogs. These poor dogs are helpless. Get rid of these criminal people. Not dogs.
I doubt the law will be enforced except _after_ a dog has been violent.