Jump to content
BC Boards

How do you feel about banning a breed?


Recommended Posts

I don't know, I've seen a lot of scientists write papers with crappy methods just because it appealed to their personal view point. I've personally had to redo stuff because a coauthor didn't like the answer... Hence, lots of crap makes it into peer reviewed journals.

 

I've done some homework for you - http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/dog-bites/dogbite-factsheet.html... It looks like the cdc might have a partial dataset that could be merged with demographics, if one was serious about pursuing it. My coauthor finally got back to me, so my inclination to search more is diminishing.

 

Finally, personally, I'm not attacking you. Bad science or blanket statements driven by false popular beliefs gets my heckles up. I have a driving need to fix them, it's a pet peeve of mine.

 

Personally, I've only ever been bitten by a Polish Mountain Dog... I try to stay away from adult big white fluffy things, but that's about it. It was a neighbors, so we didn't report it to animal control but I did have to have reconstructive surgery on my nose. I wouldn't be in an animal control set, but probably the cdc one, which is why I like it better - you can get around civil reporting, but if you're in the hospital for treatment, it will be in there. Not sure how urgent care, doctors offices and walk in clinics are handled... I'll file thus on the back burner if I need a fun paper sometime...

 

I appreciate your thoughtful and well-written responses. I felt more attacked by Blackdawgz than by you, so thank you for the civil disagreement. I think all of us are on the same page here in that we want to see an end to irresponsible breeding and irresponsible ownership, and we don't want to see dogs killed just for being the "wrong" breed. I think our only disagreement is on whether aggression is an inherited trait in pits or whether this belief is the result of bad science and biased media claims.

 

The only dog that ever truly attacked me (serious injury, as opposed to yappy dogs biting me at the shelter) was an unleashed, unidentified doberman who took a big bite out of my butt when I was three. I know back then (late 80s/early 90s) it was dobermans who were the pet of choice among bad owners who wanted "mean" or intimidating dogs, so I'm certain that trends in ownership play a huge role. I just don't think that the possibility of inheritable aggressive tendencies should be completely dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm trying to decide if I agree with you about aggressive tendencies. With bcs, you have to actively breed for working instinct and nothing else or you get junk in a generation or two. So, I'm wondering if the aggressive trait is the same way. If so, then we certainly can conclude that the current pits are not aggressive as you have already established that they are bred haphazard for any reason at all. If it happens to be more robust than working instinct, you might have a point. Unfortunately, this is way out of my league - I know nothing about genetic traits.

 

My inclination is that the owner makes the dog... So we are dealing with an adverse selection problem - people wanting aggressive dogs by pits and make them aggressive by handling them a certain way. Pits are then perceived as more aggressive, so more people wanting aggressive dogs buy pits. But that's just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to decide if I agree with you about aggressive tendencies. With bcs, you have to actively breed for working instinct and nothing else or you get junk in a generation or two. So, I'm wondering if the aggressive trait is the same way. If so, then we certainly can conclude that the current pits are not aggressive as you have already established that they are bred haphazard for any reason at all. If it happens to be more robust than working instinct, you might have a point. Unfortunately, this is way out of my league - I know nothing about genetic traits.

 

My inclination is that the owner makes the dog... So we are dealing with an adverse selection problem - people wanting aggressive dogs by pits and make them aggressive by handling them a certain way. Pits are then perceived as more aggressive, so more people wanting aggressive dogs buy pits. But that's just my opinion.

 

 

I can definitely see that. I hadn't thought about the fact that most breeds lose their characteristic behaviors pretty quickly without selective breeding, so that could explain why I've known so many pits who have been extraordinarily friendly. "Bad" (good) breeding that doesn't select for the breed's original trait behaviors. But thugs and rednecks who breed pits as fashion accessories to look "tough" are likely breeding for, not against, aggression, and those genes are almost certainly more common in pits.

 

The adverse selection problem is also definitely a factor, and the reason that the public perception of "bad" breeds has changed depending on which kind of dog is trendy for people who want to look tough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Bully breeds but do not want to live with them. Yet the owners more often than not are the ones needing to be banned than their dogs! People overbreed, undersocialize and intentionally encourage aggressive behavior. This is NOT a dog problem, but a people problem.

 

I'd hate to see any breed banned if for no other reason than there are bigger, nastier breeds out there in the world with much more potential for damage than some of the ones now facing banning.

 

Locally I am glad to see some of the breed specific bans being lifted in favor of legislation which places blame on ownersor specific dogs regardless of breed.

 

That said, I had opportunity to visit the KCMO shelter a couple weeks back, 95% of the dogs in there were some sort of bully breed or mix. That shows a great overabundance of this sort of dog. Several showed a lot of dog aggression as other dogs were walked by, Others would make great pets in responsible hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These scientists are not in the home at the time. It is all second hand knowledge. Provoked is defined differently by everyone. A Pit bull is defined differently by everyone. My border collie is a husky and an Aussie to many. That lab boxer mix is a pit bull when it bites a kid. Many of these stats use media stories as their sources and the media gets the breed wrong many times. Many of the owners don't even know what they own.

I am not saying pit bull like dogs are or are not more likely to bite but this topic isn't as simple as some people want it to be. Breed bans have not been shown to reduce dog bites or deaths.

There is an interesting documentary on this topic on Netflix as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is so true. I notice that during the university year in town, the majority of pups are bully breeds, usually owned by young men. Many are nice pups and nice young men, but a proportion are pups and dogs owned by (usually clueless) young men with a swagger who want a dog that has a swagger and makes a bit of a bully impression. That's the kind of owner (and therefore dog) that worries me.

 

I like Bully breeds but do not want to live with them. Yet the owners more often than not are the ones needing to be banned than their dogs! People overbreed, undersocialize and intentionally encourage aggressive behavior. This is NOT a dog problem, but a people problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing that concerns me other than people who want an aggressive dog and either breed or seek to get one, is that in bully breeds just like in "herding" breeds, even though you quickly lose a lot of what the animals were originally bred for in times gone by if you don't breed for it, you often get bits and pieces of that "package" when you don't breed for it. And that can be even more dangerous at times because you don't get the entire package that includes self-restraint, discrimination, and so on. That's one reason that pets are often horrible livestock killers - they have some of the prey drive but not the other characteristics that have made purpose-bred (working-bred) dogs useful, and so they can be unpredictable loose cannons. Just a thought.

 

I am usually uneasy around some people with pit bulls and definitely even more so with the larger protection-type dogs like Presa Canaria, which have been bred for fewer generations for the general public and pet market. A part of that is cluelessness on the part of many of the owners and a part is just wondering which aspects of their heritage and how much of it the particular dog possesses. Maybe foolish on my part but I still feel that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I go everywhere with my Aussie. Dog parks (not anymore), beach, schools, fields. He's been in 5 serious fights. 4 of them were with Pitbulls, one with a Golden Retriever. All of the owners were clueless (after a fight, scolding the dog like they were talking to a child? Come on.). I'd say its mostly the owners fault for not recognizing/allowing/encouraging the aggressive behavior (leather studded harness on a Pitbull? Come on, dude.) After getting into a fight with one of these owners myself, I decided to not go to dog parks anymore too many clueless dog owners and poorly behaved dogs. Its actually made me closer to my dog, afterall, I didn't bring him home so I could take him to a park to play with other dogs! We do agility, tricks and obedience now... my BC is 4 months, and she joins in with us.

 

Anyway, I think a solution would be that a an owner who has a dog who is identified as a Pitbull-type should be forced to take classes of some sort, and additional licensing of some kind. Ignoring or denying the Pitbull problem is silly. We should acknowledge it, and tackle the problem, instead of pretending it doesn't exist - like a few other widespread problems in America.

Just my 2 cents. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I go everywhere with my Aussie. Dog parks (not anymore), beach, schools, fields. He's been in 5 serious fights. 4 of them were with Pitbulls, one with a Golden Retriever. All of the owners were clueless (after a fight, scolding the dog like they were talking to a child? Come on.). I'd say its mostly the owners fault for not recognizing/allowing/encouraging the aggressive behavior (leather studded harness on a Pitbull? Come on, dude.) After getting into a fight with one of these owners myself, I decided to not go to dog parks anymore too many clueless dog owners and poorly behaved dogs. Its actually made me closer to my dog, afterall, I didn't bring him home so I could take him to a park to play with other dogs! We do agility, tricks and obedience now... my BC is 4 months, and she joins in with us.

 

Anyway, I think a solution would be that a an owner who has a dog who is identified as a Pitbull-type should be forced to take classes of some sort, and additional licensing of some kind. Ignoring or denying the Pitbull problem is silly. We should acknowledge it, and tackle the problem, instead of pretending it doesn't exist - like a few other widespread problems in America.

Just my 2 cents. :D

 

Two things:

 

My dog has never gotten into a fight, but what is the appropriate way to handle it if your dog starts a fight with another dog? You say that scolding them like children isn't the answer, but just in case I run into that problem, what's the best way to handle it?

 

My BC's best friend is our neighbor's pit bull. He isn't at all aggressive. I think it's because he has a very responsible owner. We run into pits at the dog park all the time and there's never been a fight there, but I think it's because (here, at least) the kinds of owners who take their dogs to the dog park are the kinds of owners who are also making sure their pets are properly trained and socialized from an early age.

 

 

I 100% agree with your last paragraph, but I wonder if the increased cost (because of additional licensing or obedience classes) would deter some people from adopting, and then increase the euthanasia rate? I think it would be great if there was a program through Animal Control that would provide vouchers for free obedience training to anyone who adopts a pit bull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I don't think additional licensing will do much. Stupid owners abound and trust me, if they don't care about training their dog properly they won't care about meeting licensing requirements either. I'm not sure about other area of the country but licensing isn't well enforced. License laws are used after the fact when something goes wrong. I am in favor of laws that hold owners responsible for the actions of their dogs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I don't think additional licensing will do much. Stupid owners abound and trust me, if they don't care about training their dog properly they won't care about meeting licensing requirements either. I'm not sure about other area of the country but licensing isn't well enforced. License laws are used after the fact when something goes wrong. I am in favor of laws that hold owners responsible for the actions of their dogs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saw an article from Britain where they are considering life in prison for anyone with a dog that kills someone.

 

That might slow some of this stuff down.

 

People are getting tired of hearing about dogs killing people. It is really bad when you can't walk down the street because you are afraid of being attacked by the neighbor's dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saw an article from Britain where they are considering life in prison for anyone with a dog that kills someone.

 

That might slow some of this stuff down.

 

Y'see, I don't think that would work much. I had mentioned earlier about a "good" dog with a responsible owner who nearly killed my friend's four-year-old daughter with no provocation. Another poster mentioned that it was probably predatory drift. I don't think it would be fair for the owner (who is responsible and has not bred or trained for aggression) to be locked away for life because his otherwise docile dog gave into an unpredictable instinct. The dog was euthanized and that was already horrible enough, and the owner hasn't forgiven himself for what happened to my friend's daughter.

 

Life in prison for anyone whose dog kills someone, IF the dog was trained for aggression, might make sense. But I would hate to see good owners being locked away because of an accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not an accident if you own a dog from a breed that is known for killing people. If you own a bully breed then you know it has the potential to be a killer. Same with some other breeds like mastiffs and rotties and GSD. If you choose to own one of those dogs then you are responisble for making sure that dog is never in a position to attack someone.

 

Now, I agree with you if someone has a jack russel and it tears someones throat out. But not if it's a breed known for that kind of aggression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you own a dog you should make sure it doesn't attack someone. It shouldn't be made into a breed thing. It needs to be an aggressive dog thing. Out of all the dogs I've known, the most aggressive were the Labs. While the Pit mix and GSD just weren't aggressive at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be in favor of prison time for an owner of a dog that was documented to be aggressive and attacked a person

 

Agree with that entirely, regardless of the breed. The reason I think it would be totally inappropriate for the dog I was talking about is that he was responsibly owned, obedience-trained, "good with kids," and then just snapped with no warning. That might be more common with pits but it could happen to anyone.

 

If you know your dog is aggressive and then it seriously injures or kills someone, I agree that jail time is completely appropriate. Dogs that have attacked before need to be muzzled in public and crated when you have guests, no exceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this is something that comes with owning high energy breeds but I'm very aware that one of my dogs could hurt someone and act accordingly. It would be unintentional but they run hard and grab toys. Add little kids (I have several young nieces/nephews who love to play with my dogs) to the equation and one of the kids could get hurt even though my dogs would die before they intentionally hurt a person. So I always supervise. Period. I know my dogs, I know their behavior, I can prevent issues. As with many other things, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If every dog owner acted this way I believe at least 90% of dog related injuries would be avoided

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I take it you're in favor of banning mastiffs, rottweilers, GSDs, pit bulls, and all mixes thereof? And you're okay with that meaning the death of hundreds of thousands of dogs?

No. I'm not in favor of banning anything. But people who own potentially dangerous dogs need to be responsible for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue in favor of licensing, with anyone owning a dog above a specific weight limit required to either take obedience and dog behavior classes or have the dog pass a temperament test. If the owner is unwilling to do so, I'd be in favor of mandatory neutering -- of the owner,-- though I'm happy to hear responses that both dog and owner would be safer if de-sexed. I know, not going to happen....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...