Breed specific legislation

[draggar]

Florida's senate had a "discussion" last week about lifting the ban on breed specific legislation. (Which I'm going to call my senator about).

Honestly, I think this is a very bad idea. There are only 1 or 2 breeds bred to be aggressive towards humans (as stated in their breed standard) and neither have any significant presence in the USA.

No dog attacks are because of the breed and all dogs can bite. What causes them is poor ownership, a poor home life, and poor training. People blame the breed though panic and ignorance.

Statictics are also flawed. They go by sheer numbers. German shepherds are considered a dangerous breed because they routinely top the list of dog bites in the USA but some things facts are never mentioned:

- The German shepherd is the second most popular breed in the USA (#1 in the world). With more German shepherds of course you're going to have more incidents.

- It is also the #1 (or #2 if malinois aren't used) in the USA for police and military work. They are also #1 for home protection and when a dog bites someone breaking into a house (dog defending its property) most states would still consider it a bite.

People always bring up pit bulls. While I don't like the breed (I'm not a terrier person) I do know that it is not a bad breed. I know a pit bull breeder and he screens all of his potential owners and has never had any of his dogs bite anyone out of aggression. I've also known pit bulls that I didn't trust (I could tell they had the potential to attack someone) and each of those the owner was a horrible owner - neglected it, didn't train it, kept it outside all the time, they woudl let it challenge people, etc.

It is almost never the dog's fault and it is never the breed's fault - it is the fault of poor owners and poor training.

Honestly, I think people who support breed specific legislation don't know enough about dogs at all to make an informed decision and are basing it on what they hear or read about on the news.

[elsporko]

The trouble with pit bull statistics is that most pit bull bites didn't actually happen from a pit bull, but rather a mix, or in some cases an unrelated breed. People don't know what pit bulls actually look like most of the time.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

It's pretty typical scare-mongering public-safety BS. It seems we can't get within five feet of public safety in any area without someone making up/skewing the numbers. *head-desk*

I've only ever interacted with two full pit bulls and they were about the sweetest dogs anyone could want

[crashhelmet]

A friend of mine in Orlando used to breed Pitt Bulls. He is where I got mine from.

It's almost all bad media and press. As was pointed out, it's not the breed that's bad but the way they are trained/cared for.

Back in 1987, baseball player Don Mattingly tied and broke a record set by Dale Long in 1956 for 8 home runs in 8 consecutive games. Don Mattingly hit 10 in 8 consecutive games. The cover of Sport's Illustrated that next week had a little corner picture of Mattingly at bat, while the rest of the cover was a picture of a Pitt Bull baring its teeth, snarling at the photographer. You can view it here. You can read the article here

I'm going to stop myself before I go full on into a rant here. Read the article. Read it all. The good and the bad.

CH

[fireheart17]

We have the same issue down here as well. The main problem however, seems to be centred more towards Rottweilers, not so much german shephards.

Although the opinions slightly differ on another matter regarding why dogs need to be registered and not cats, but that's for another thread.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

I've said it before but I will say it again. The problem isn't the dogs, it's the OWNERS.

[jedimaster91]

I don't agree with breed-specific legislation. Like others, I firmly believe most cases of aggressive dogs are due to bad owners. Granted there are dogs out there of all breeds that come from poor breeding lines and have a genetic predisposition to being vicious. My neighbor's brother had one of those unstable pits and it snapped one day and attacked their mentally disabled sister. The guy ended up having to shoot the dog to get it off her.

That being said, there are certain breeds I am nervous about having around children--mine or anyone else's. Pits top my list mostly because of how big and strong they are. Even with the closest supervision, a rambunctious dog could seriously injure a child without meaning to. Heck, I worry about my BEAGLE knocking over one of the neighborhood kids in her excitement.

[elsporko]

The thing is Pit Bulls are bred to be aggressive towards animals and not be aggressive towards humans. A fighting dog that would attack its handler when hurt would be a poor choice. Pit Bulls use to be called nursery dogs because they were good with children because they were less likely to bite a child that played too rough.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I've said it before but I will say it again. The problem isn't the dogs, it's the OWNERS.

Agreed. Back in the days when I had a dog, these people who also lived in the same village had a pit bull. It was savage and was known to attack other dogs... not cuz of being a pit bull, but cuz the owners neglected it and very rarely exercised it. Eventually, due to an anoymous tip off by a neighbour, the dog was taken off them and hopefully rehomed with people who'd look after it better.

The point I'm making is that owners like that could make any dog savage. The neglect was well known; they could also have been knocking the dog around, too, for all anyone knew. I also encountered a vicious Jack Russel, a Minature Yorkshire Terrier and a Dobermann cross.

Breed specific laws are doomed to failure; they have them in the UK. The Dangerous Dog Act; passed in 1991 and amended in 1997.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991...10065_en_1.htm
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997..._19970053_en_1

Simplistic version of the act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Dogs_Act_1991

Four types in particular were identified by the Act:

* Pit Bull Terrier (a description which has led to some confusion, as the "Pit bull" is not a breed in and of itself but encompasses a range of breeds)
* Japanese Tosa
* Dogo Argentino
* Fila Brasileiro

The Act also cover cross breeds of the above four types of dog. Dangerous dogs are classified by 'type', not by breed label. This means that whether a dog is prohibited under the Act will depend on a judgement about its physical characteristics, and whether they match the description of a prohibited 'type'. This assessment of the physical characteristics is made by a court.

In 1997 The Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 was passed which made some changes.[4] From 1997 any Court was able to order that a specific dog be added to the Index by the issue of a Court Order.

Under the 1991 Act as amended it remains illegal to own any of these dogs without specific exemption from a court. The dogs have to be muzzled and kept on a leash in public, they must be registered and insured, neutered, tattooed and receive microchip implants.

Basically, this Act was rushed into law due to public overreaction at cases of dogs attacking children. It was not thought out or planned properly, and in some cases, dogs have been sentenced to death without reason. The best known case is that of Dempsey, who was later reprieved.

http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/dempsey.html

[Gravekeeper]

I'm kinda torn on this one. As you guys have said, its not bad breeds but bad owners. However, the inverse of this is that some breeds require more knowledge and training to raise properly. And some breeds are naturally far more powerful animals then others.

Personally I would prefer legislation that says "If you're going to own a 100+ lb animal with teeth, you need to know how to raise it properly. Please take this course.".

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I'm kinda torn on this one. As you guys have said, its not bad breeds but bad owners. However, the inverse of this is that some breeds require more knowledge and training to raise properly. And some breeds are naturally far more powerful animals then others.

Personally I would prefer legislation that says "If you're going to own a 100+ lb animal with teeth, you need to know how to raise it properly. Please take this course.".

This is a little more like it

Makes a lot of sense, seeing as the same works in other areas as well (but I'm not going to go there), though the legislature still gets it's ban-hammer out regardless...

[tabbyblack13]

The thing is that "Pit Bulls" are not an AKC recognized breed. There are no standard of size. So I say this. If you are going to own a dog that can be considered a powerful breed then you have to register it, train it, and have it pass a "Good canine citizen" test. I would love it if all dogs would have to go through this. I can't tell you how often I have dealt with small dogs that scared me because it was so unpredictable.

If you don't want to go through all of this work then don't get a dog. I hear statues make nice yard ordainments.

I admit I love the more powerful breed but I do not have the following: time, energy, yard, and patients. If I would get a dog right now I would end up having my house chewed up, cats chased, and when my front door opened that dog would be gone.

[Gravekeeper]

Oddly, I find small dogs to generally have much much worse behaviour then large dogs. They're just not large enough to do any damage.

I assume its because they are often Mommy's Little Purserat owner wise. >.>

[Lace Neil Singer]

The thing is that "Pit Bulls" are not an AKC recognized breed. There are no standard of size

Like Jack Russels, which are often kept as pets due to their small size... despite the fact that they are in fact working dogs and require a great deal of exercise. I think the problem is ignorance in general about dogs; people should have to take a test and apply for a licience, same as with cars.

[elsporko]

Oddly, I find small dogs to generally have much much worse behaviour then large dogs. They're just not large enough to do any damage.

I assume its because they are often Mommy's Little Purserat owner wise. >.>

This is true, small dogs are more likely to bite, they just don't get reported because they don't do much damage. People also don't train small dogs as much because they think the dog is too small to hurt anybody, which is usually fine unless the dog decides to chew on a toddler's face.