Would you support BSL?

[tessas212]

Breed specific legislation, or otherwise known as “BSL,” is the discrimination against a certain breed of dog, or breeds of dog. Such legislation is fueled by hysteria and ignorance about the “pit bull” breed, claiming that they are inherently vicious. There is no individual consideration of a “pit bulls” temperament. All “pit bulls,” even friendly, temperamentally stable ones, are victims of BSL. On of two things happens when BSL is put into place, the compete ban of "pit bulls" or restrictions and regulations put on the owners of such dogs. After laws ban “pit bulls”, animal control officers confiscate and kill all dogs deemed to be “pit bulls.” Some BSL laws do not entirely ban “pit bulls”, but enact certain restrictions and regulations on those who own “pit bulls.” For example, the city of Toledo, Ohio prohibits any person to own more than one “pit bull” at a time and all "pit bulls" must be muzzled at all times when off the property of the owner. In addition, many cities and states are including other breeds in such legislations, including boxers, german shepherds, great danes, mastiffs, st bernards, dalmations, bull terriers, and american bulldogs.

If officials wanted to enact BSL in your city/state, would you be supportive of such legislation?

 

[romanov]

No, I would not support BSL"s. Seems to me the whole pit bull thing is just more proof that the sheeple of this country can only feel and not think.

 

[chaim]

While I am not particularly up on the issue, I do recall an article in the paper after the last fatal dog attack in my area. It discussed the breeds most responsible for dog attacks, and said that more than half of all serious dog attacks were caused by pit bulls, rottweilers and mixes there of. Seeing that these breeds make up a small percentage of dogs, particularly compared to golden retrievers and the like, there attacks are clearly more than a statistical anomaly. Whether they should be banned of not doesn't really bother me, however it seems that plenty of other things have banned or regulated for causing less harm. I guess to sum it up, I have no problem with banning them, but at the same time I am not lobbying for such a ban.

Breed specific legislation, or otherwise known as “BSL,” is the discrimination against a certain breed of dog, or breeds of dog. Such legislation is fueled by hysteria and ignorance about the “pit bull” breed, claiming that they are inherently vicious. There is no individual consideration of a “pit bulls” temperament. All “pit bulls,” even friendly, temperamentally stable ones, are victims of BSL. On of two things happens when BSL is put into place, the compete ban of "pit bulls" or restrictions and regulations put on the owners of such dogs. After laws ban “pit bulls”, animal control officers confiscate and kill all dogs deemed to be “pit bulls.” Some BSL laws do not entirely ban “pit bulls”, but enact certain restrictions and regulations on those who own “pit bulls.” For example, the city of Toledo, Ohio prohibits any person to own more than one “pit bull” at a time and all "pit bulls" must be muzzled at all times when off the property of the owner. In addition, many cities and states are including other breeds in such legislations, including boxers, german shepherds, great danes, mastiffs, st bernards, dalmations, bull terriers, and american bulldogs.

If officials wanted to enact BSL in your city/state, would you be supportive of such legislation?

 

[tessas212]

Chaim, I understand your reasoning due to what you've read, however I'm here to inform you that dog bite statistics are largely inaccurate and tell nothing of a particular breed's tendency for aggression or viciousness. We must look past the surface. Although they are inaccurate, I do admit that on the surface dog bite studies do show a correlation between "pit bull" type dogs and dog attacks.

If you are interested in hearing what I have to say, we can together further examine dog bite studies and your reasoning for believing such breeds have higher tendencies toward viciousness.

 

[keith99]

No.

If for no other reason than that once you 'ban' a breed those wanting mean dogs will find another.

Last pitbull I remember having contact with was an older overweight female. I was at a local hardware store and saw the dog, seemingly alone. Turned out the owner was there, just hidden becasue she was sitting back to a tree and there was a car parked nearby, dog was far enough to the right to be visible. The dow was a sweetheart. (owner was nice also).

I have one that might by at least in part a 'bad breed' dog showed up in a friends back yard. He might be largely Presa Canario. He is a sweetheart too. He is a powerful dog, but interestingly has a very very soft mouth.

90% of how a dog ends up is training/environment. Really bad dogs are almost always either abused or actively trained to be mean.

But training can be undone. My other dog was almost surely abused. got him from the ASPCA. Sweet dog, but the first time I scolded him he lost control of his bladder. (That was a nasty problem, I couldn't let that pass entirely, but I sure wasn't going to yell at him for it). Now the only sign of past trouble is fear of water and perhaps that he worships me.

The guy that told me that one of my dogs is likely part Presa has a friend. This friend truely rescues dogs. He rehabilitates losing dogs from hte fighting pits in venice. Yup he undoes the damage done to pit bulls taught to fight. That is what I consider a true rescue.

 

[DaisyDay]

No, that's foolish legislation. If pit bulls are outlawed, people will use rottweilers. If rottweilers are outlawed, people will use Presa Canarioes. Then, too, if a dog is not a purebred, do you outlaw pit bull "types"? How is that determined?

Hold the owners strictly responsible for their animals.

I have a sweet little mutt that many people think looks like a pit bull with a shepard snout and muley ears. I'm afraid to take her to Ontario.

 

[JBJoe]

I would like to have something like a license for people to own certain breeds.

I have owned pit bulls (and BSL almost always targets pits and possibly Presa Canario) and I know them to be loving, faithful dogs who are gentle and protective of children and families. But they are dogs. Very powerful, tenacious dogs. They are not children, and they are not an extension of your ego. Nearly all pit bull maulings can be traced to bad ownership. But unlike a shih-tzu mauling, a pit bull mauling will be much more serious.

Pit bulls are descendants of the rat terriers of the middle ages who were bred specifically to kill rats. Whereas a labrador has an instinct to hold, but not crush, its prey; terriers have an instinct to deliver a serious bite and shake the life out of it. Pit bulls were also bred to fight - to the death. Originally they were used to bait bulls, later they fought each other.

If you are not an experienced, licensed dog breeder with the land to do it properly, you should not be allowed to have an unspayed/neutered dog; especially a pit. I get upset to the point of wanting to scream when I'm traveling through areas of apartment/condo only living and I see someone out walking an intact male pit bull.

Sorry, but that animal is a dog first and your pet second. An intact male dog will fight to get and keep access to a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] in season. A breeder should have his license revoked if he sells an intact animal to another person who is not a breeder.

 

[eldermike]

My wife owns a boarding/grooming kennel. Many years ago we also taught people how to train and live with their dogs. If it were up to me I would ban the american cocker spanial and all cats.............just kidding.....

Dogs are not the problem.......

 

[chaim]

After a quick look on wikipedia, it seems that the numbers I read are supported. While there are certainly other factors in dog attacks (training, miss treatment, lack of neutering) these factors are even less regulatable than breed. Again I am not lobbying for pit bull bans, but I would not be against one if it were instigated. I don't see to many arguments against banning them (or at least the sale of 'new' pit bulls/rottwielers etc), much as there aren't many arguments against having a mountain lion as a pet.

Chaim, I understand your reasoning due to what you've read, however I'm here to inform you that dog bite statistics are largely inaccurate and tell nothing of a particular breed's tendency for aggression or viciousness. We must look past the surface. Although they are inaccurate, I do admit that on the surface dog bite studies do show a correlation between "pit bull" type dogs and dog attacks.

If you are interested in hearing what I have to say, we can together further examine dog bite studies and your reasoning for believing such breeds have higher tendencies toward viciousness.

 

[keith99]

I get upset to the point of wanting to scream when I'm traveling through areas of apartment/condo only living and I see someone out walking an intact male pit bull.

Just want to hammer on this point. There was a death caused by a pair of Presas in San Francisco. They were kept in an Apartment. Such dogs need space, as do Pit bulls and any other large breed. In some ways dogs are not different from humans. Keep them in cramped quarters and they get touchy. An apartment/condo is cramped for a large dog.

 

[pgp_protector]

nope I wouldn't vote for any BSL.

 

[tessas212]

After a quick look on wikipedia, it seems that the numbers I read are supported. While there are certainly other factors in dog attacks (training, miss treatment, lack of neutering) these factors are even less regulatable than breed. Again I am not lobbying for pit bull bans, but I would not be against one if it were instigated. I don't see to many arguments against banning them (or at least the sale of 'new' pit bulls/rottwielers etc), much as there aren't many arguments against having a mountain lion as a pet.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Have you researched yet how such studies that produced these statistics were done? Many studies are done in a highly unreliable manner. I'd be interested to see any reputable and reliable studies.

And actually, the "pit bull" is not a breed, therefore it is quite difficult to regulate. To help regulate "pit bulls" laws MUST list actual registered breeds in legislations, meaning many breeds of dogs(such as the list I've already provided in the OP) are at risk as well. Also, because breeds cannot be proven in any way(there is no reliable genetic difference between breeds of dogs) it is very hard to prove that any dog of questionable appearance belongs to any breed.

 

[Jester4kicks]

No, I don't support BSL, however I do support holding animal owner's responsible for the actions of their animals.

 

[tessas212]

No, I don't support BSL, however I do support holding animal owner's responsible for the actions of their animals.

As do I. After all, in the eyes of the laws animals are property, therefore the owner of that property is to be held responsible.

 

[chaim]

I have not done any further study and don't intend to do so, the wikipedia article provides source for their data including an article in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association prepared by researchers from the CDC. These PhDs and DVMs seem to be able to identify pit bulls as being significantly more apt to be invcolved in dog attacks than other breeds. I would have no problem with people keeping what ever dog they wanted if these injuries were limited to dog owners and their families, but that is not the case. Unfortunately a significant number of dog attacks happen to neighbours and random people. As someone who was bitten by a dog while riding my bike down the road I am well aware of this.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Have you researched yet how such studies that produced these statistics were done? Many studies are done in a highly unreliable manner. I'd be interested to see any reputable and reliable studies.

And actually, the "pit bull" is not a breed, therefore it is quite difficult to regulate. To help regulate "pit bulls" laws MUST list actual registered breeds in legislations, meaning many breeds of dogs(such as the list I've already provided in the OP) are at risk as well. Also, because breeds cannot be proven in any way(there is no reliable genetic difference between breeds of dogs) it is very hard to prove that any dog of questionable appearance belongs to any breed.

 

[comana]

No, I would not support that type of legislation.

I recently adopted a dog but was careful to not bring one home that looked anything like a "pitbull" so that I would not have to deal with the possibility of being forced to move or have it removed my home in the event a law like this came to town.

I would support laws that required more responsibility from owners and especially breeders.

 

[tessas212]

Also, when studies are done, we must be careful not to quickly assume that their "conclusion" is the truth. Correlations do not automatically mean exact relations and cause/effect.

It has been proven time and time again that no breed of dog is 'inherently vicious', therefore one cannot blame it on a breed alone. But if some studies, albeit most are inaccurate anyway, are suggesting that they ARE, we must dig to find out why.

And here is the why: Irresponsible owners

Any and all breeds of dogs can become dangerous depending on their training and the individuals that own them. ““I’ve seen virtually every breed involved in fatalities, including Pomeranians and everything else,” [said] Randall Lockwood, a senior vice-president of the A.S.P.C.A. and one of the country’s leading dog bite experts."
In Dr. Cornelia Wagner’s article, "Are certain dog breeds more dangerous than others?" she stated, “It is a fallacy to assume that all members of large breeds are generally more dangerous than all members of small breeds.” Dr. Wagner argues that it is the circumstances involved that make a dog dangerous, not the breed, and that all other breeds of dogs have the potential to become dangerous.
Targeting the “pit bull” alone alsoignores evidence that dogs who are involved in dog bites and fatal attacks are often owned by a particular group of irresponsible dog owners. Malcolm Gladwell said in his The New Yorker article, Troublemakers, “In about a quarter of fatal dog-bite cases, the dog owners were previously involved in illegal fighting.”
Also, it could be said to be an irresponsible owner problem for that " [FONT=&quot]Often, the dogs had a history of aggressive incidents," meaning that the aggressiveness was known about, but the owner did not take careful precautions to ensure the safety of others.

But perhaps the most convincing reason that people should not support BSL is because it is ineffective. It does not decrease dog bites. In fact, in some places where BSL is enacted, dog bites and fatalities increase. The Dutch government in June of 2008 lifted a long standing ban on "pit bulls" because it did not lead to any decrease in bite incidents. In the UK, where "pit bulls" have been banned since 1991, bite rates also did not decrease. A more local example is Prince George County in Maryland, that found their "pit bull" ban was not working efficiently and threw it out. As much as I care about the dogs in general and do not want to see my breed banned next, I care about people too. If we want to decrease dog bites and fatalities, you have to go to the real source of the problem. And that is not the breed, it is the irresponsible owners, dog fighters, and lack of laws restricting irresponsible behavior. Enforcing leash laws, higher penalties for animal cruelty (dog fighting), defining dangerous dog by behavior rather than breed, and holding the owners accountable has proven in some areas to decrease dog bites. [/FONT]

 

[HollandScotts]

After a quick look on wikipedia, it seems that the numbers I read are supported. While there are certainly other factors in dog attacks (training, miss treatment, lack of neutering) these factors are even less regulatable than breed. Again I am not lobbying for pit bull bans, but I would not be against one if it were instigated. I don't see to many arguments against banning them (or at least the sale of 'new' pit bulls/rottwielers etc), much as there aren't many arguments against having a mountain lion as a pet.

How about the fact that they really are a great breed of dog. And if you start with pits, then you will be banning lots of other dogs. And at the federal level, it ammounts to genocide. Do we really have the right to snuff out an entire breed of dog, like Britain has? How about making criminals out of people whose only crime is not giving up a beloved pet because of some doggie jihad?

 

[HollandScotts]

I recently adopted a dog but was careful to not bring one home that looked anything like a "pitbull" so that I would not have to deal with the possibility of being forced to move or have it removed my home in the event a law like this came to town.

Here's another part of it. How do you tell a pitbull? Yea, a minority of dog owners own pits, but a surpising number of us have dogs that look like pits, look like they might be pits. And it is pit-mixes that are responsible for a lot of the pitbull maulings.

Do people really support the police kicking in doors just to drag away the family pet?

 

[keith99]

One of the basic rules of science is:

Correlation does not prove causality.

In dog breeds vrs. incidents this is especially suspect.

Those wanting a tough dog pick breeds with a reputation. They then train these dogs to be mean.

For that matter legitimate use of guard dogs picks for similar reputations. (But adds in trainability).

Properly trained guard dogs are far more likely to have an incident, because in some cases that is their job. Those incidents should be excluded from any compilation used to determine a 'bad breed'

With guard dogs one could compile some very useful information by comparing incidents not in line with their training/job by breed. (Though even here there are dangers, a dog having more incidents where the dog is just doing their job has a greater chance of eventually having one of those become excessive just because of the number of chances for things to go wrong).

From what I've seen animal control officers can do a pretty good job of evaluating a dog (and more so an owner). I'd much rather have them use their brains that a short list of bad breeds.