NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think banning entire breeds of dogs in acceptable?

Edit: Poll is now up.

I feel that banning entire breeds of dogs in wrong. Dogs only become aggressive and lash out if they are mistreated and abused. Also, any dog will eventually lash out if somebody is mistreating it. Owners should responsible for their dogs. Good owners train their dogs well, and the dogs do not attack people. Bad owners should be held accountable for the actions their dog takes in regards to attacks on people. So, banning dogs, such at Pit Bulls, is wrong. Owners are responsible. Punish the individual dog and the owners, not the entire breed!

Banning breeds is idiotic. When you get a properly socialized dog that happens to be one of the "dangerous breeds", you generally find that said dog is calmer and more docile than most of the little yappy dogs. You want to ban something? Ban people who don't properly socialize and train their pets from having any.

Note: I mean "you" as in the general "you", not anyone in particular.

ban dogs period. psychotic stinking little bastards the lot of them.*





*the author makes no guaratees as to the seriousness of this post.

In my area there is a huge problem with Pitt Bulls being used for dog fights, there are horrible attacks weekly, and people are calling to ban the breed (in fact they are banned in two suburbs of my city), but I don't really think you can ban a breed. I have a friend that is trying to get a law passed so people with dogs that are large and could cause major damage have to have insurance on them, I agree with that. Big dogs can be dangerous, little dogs can be dangerous, but kids don't lose arms and such over poodle bites.

Banning dog breeds basically equals genocide. They're a species, and like all species they are meant to survive and reproduce. Breeds aren't bad, they just are raised bad.

And on dogfighting, I think people who do that should be sedated and left in a room with their dogs, and whatever happens happens. No joke, I'm serious.

Nah, let's just ban whatever race of people is more statistically likely to own a dangerous animal.

Banning dog breeds basically equals genocide. They're a species, and like all species they are meant to survive and reproduce. Breeds aren't bad, they just are raised bad.

And on dogfighting, I think people who do that should be sedated and left in a room with their dogs, and whatever happens happens. No joke, I'm serious.

I would love to do that, especially if it keeps the dogs from eating toddlers.

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/watercooler/article.aspx?storyid=69886
http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/HOUSE/news7682.html

I would love to do that, especially if it keeps the dogs from eating toddlers.

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/watercooler/article.aspx?storyid=69886
http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/HOUSE/news7682.html

Those stories are horrible! I'll show a good pit bull story, however!


http://dogsinthenews.com/stories/070301a.php

That story is heartbreaking! Reading the last little bit and then looking at the picture is hard to stomach.

In my area there is a huge problem with Pitt Bulls being used for dog fights, there are horrible attacks weekly, and people are calling to ban the breed (in fact they are banned in two suburbs of my city), but I don't really think you can ban a breed. I have a friend that is trying to get a law passed so people with dogs that are large and could cause major damage have to have insurance on them, I agree with that. Big dogs can be dangerous, little dogs can be dangerous, but kids don't lose arms and such over poodle bites.

No, that just makes a poor assumption. A friend of mine was attacked by, of all things, a Jack Russel terrier when she was six that tore up the left side of her face and left scars are still visible after high school. Better to have law enforcement crack down harder on the dogfighting, or at least pass a law that requires dog owner's insurance to pay for medical costs incurred as a result of their dog's actions.

Those stories are horrible! I'll show a good pit bull story, however!


http://dogsinthenews.com/stories/070301a.php

That story is heartbreaking! Reading the last little bit and then looking at the picture is hard to stomach.
I don't have a problem with Pitt Bulls, I used to have one, very sweet dog, I have a problem with the Pitt Bulls in my area because 90% of them are vicious, because they have been trained to be so.

No, that just makes a poor assumption. A friend of mine was attacked by, of all things, a Jack Russel terrier when she was six that tore up the left side of her face and left scars are still visible after high school. Better to have law enforcement crack down harder on the dogfighting, or at least pass a law that requires dog owner's insurance to pay for medical costs incurred as a result of their dog's actions.
I said I support passing the law so owners have to have insurance and that I don't support passing a law banning pitt bulls because I don't think you even can, what about a mix breed? is he half banned? I have a scar from a ferret bite, yes, cats, small dogs, squirrels and birds can do damage, but big freaking dogs can do more damage, twice this year a child has lost a limb from a pitt attack, you just don't see that happening with Jack Russel terriers who btw are the craziest dogs I have ever seen......

The cops are trying to bust the dog fighting but with that and trying to deal with all the other problems in my city, they are just overworked.

Its not the BREED of dog. Yes, some breeds are easier to train to be aggressive than others, but you can make ANY breed of dog into a fighting dog. Anybody who has EVER met a poodle knows full well that theyre vicious little bastards half the time because theyve been spoiled rotten.
Pit Bulls are quite sweet when brought up properly, theyre very loyal and quite gentle. Our neighbor had one whose favorite activity was trying to trip guests by stretching across doorways.
We own a German Shepherd who thinks she's a cat, she chases laser pointers and, if you put one on the floor, back massagers. The only time she ever growled seriously at ANYTHING was when a male dog of some sort tried to get frisky with her.
Saying one breed of dog is worse than another is exactly the same as saying one race of humans is worse than another. Yeah, some of them tend to be inbred (coughdalmatianscough), but personality issues are usually a reflection of either mental problems or upbringing.

EDIT:
Now, registration and restriction of dog ownership is fine by me. If somebody with animal cruelty/dog fighting/spousal abuse/what have you convictions wants to buy twelve pitbulls, yeah, deny away. It wont stop dogfighting, but it might help curb it.

Big dogs can be dangerous, little dogs can be dangerous, but kids don't lose arms and such over poodle bites.

I work at a dog grooming shop. My boss has been grooming dogs of all shapes and sizes (including pit bulls, rottweillers, and multiple breeds of police dogs) for over 20 years. The worst injury she has ever seen was a bite by a cocker spaniel that sent her assistant to the hospital where she had to have major reconstructive surgery on her face. The assumption that only big dogs cause major damage is unfortunate and misinformed. IMHO, dog owners should bear the responsibility of any damage to a person caused by their dog as if they had done it themselves. If my German Shepherd Dog bit someone and seriously injured them it would be MY FAULT for not training him properly and/or restraining him if he is aggressive.

Personally, I'm none too fond of the existence of purebred dogs (or cats) in the first place. It encourages inbreeding, which is BAD. Fleas and snails can roger their relatives and get away with it, the line is drawn by the spinal column. My family never had a single purebred dog or cat when I was growing up and they lived to be around 14. I'd rather have a long-lived mutt than get a Corgi or Rhodesian Ridgeback that gets hip dysplasia in five years.

Let 'em revert to default. They'll be healthier. So basically, my vote was "Depends."

Dog genocide because certain breeds are given a bad rep?

Buuuuuuuullshit.

And on dogfighting, I think people who do that should be sedated and left in a room with their dogs, and whatever happens happens. No joke, I'm serious.
That wouldn't happen with real dog fighters. Dog fighting breeds are bred for gentility towards humans so their owners can pull them apart. It's the incompetent retards that keep getting caught and are breeding and training their animals to be dangerous to everything that are really ruining breeds.

I work at a dog grooming shop. My boss has been grooming dogs of all shapes and sizes (including pit bulls, rottweillers, and multiple breeds of police dogs) for over 20 years. The worst injury she has ever seen was a bite by a cocker spaniel that sent her assistant to the hospital where she had to have major reconstructive surgery on her face. The assumption that only big dogs cause major damage is unfortunate and misinformed. IMHO, dog owners should bear the responsibility of any damage to a person caused by their dog as if they had done it themselves. If my German Shepherd Dog bit someone and seriously injured them it would be MY FAULT for not training him properly and/or restraining him if he is aggressive.

fine, dog insurance for everyone!

I didn't say that little dogs can't cause damage, I am just saying in my area big dogs like Pitts are bred/socialized/trained to kill.

Ban the stupidly miniature purse breeds. The poor things have horrible health problems.

I didn't say that little dogs can't cause damage, I am just saying in my area big dogs like Pitts are bred/socialized/trained to kill.
Because the people training/breeding them are fucking incompetent buffoon niggars (see the Boondocks rant here) and rednecks. The fighting breeds were bred to be safe to humans, it is these idiots ruining the breeds by making them dangerous to everything through bad training and bad socializing because they arn't real trainers.

Not that I condone it, but if they were doing it right, the dogs would only be dangerous to other animals, especially dogs.

yes, and blaming the people instead of the dogs isn't stopping the dogs from eating the children.
And banning dogs is? It is the people's fault, not the dogs. Dogs, large or small, are highly dangerous if not trained and socialized properly.

Because the people training/breeding them are fucking incompetent buffoon niggars (see the Boondocks rant here) and rednecks. The fighting breeds were bred to be safe to humans, it is these idiots ruining the breeds by making them dangerous to everything through bad training and bad socializing because they arn't real trainers.

Not that I condone it, but if they were doing it right, the dogs would only be dangerous to other animals, especially dogs.

yes, and blaming the people instead of the dogs isn't stopping the dogs from eating the children. I don't blame the dogs anyway, I don't need to place blame on the dogs to know to keep them the hell away from my kids. I already said I think the owners should be responsible for them, and have insurance so that if the dog does eat my kid they have to clean up the mess and pay the bills.

I NEVER SAID WE SHOULD BAN DOG BREEDS I SAID THAT WE SHOULD MAKE PEOPLE HAVE INSURANCE SO THAT WHEN THEIR DOG ATTACKS THEY HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT
Of course no one is going to fucking agree to that.

Personally, I'm none too fond of the existence of purebred dogs (or cats) in the first place. It encourages inbreeding, which is BAD. Fleas and snails can roger their relatives and get away with it, the line is drawn by the spinal column. My family never had a single purebred dog or cat when I was growing up and they lived to be around 14. I'd rather have a long-lived mutt than get a Corgi or Rhodesian Ridgeback that gets hip dysplasia in five years.

Let 'em revert to default. They'll be healthier. So basically, my vote was "Depends."

I do see your point. I've had 2 beagles. My current one is a mix. My first one was a purebred, and he had a major seizure disorder. I think breed mixing is generally good for health.

And banning dogs is? It is the people's fault, not the dogs. Dogs, large or small, are highly dangerous if not trained and socialized properly.

I NEVER SAID WE SHOULD BAN DOG BREEDS I SAID THAT WE SHOULD MAKE PEOPLE HAVE INSURANCE SO THAT WHEN THEIR DOG ATTACKS THEY HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT

I NEVER SAID WE SHOULD BAN DOG BREEDS I SAID THAT WE SHOULD MAKE PEOPLE HAVE INSURANCE SO THAT WHEN THEIR DOG ATTACKS THEY HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT

I agree they should take responsibility, I do not agree with the insurance part. I'm generally sick of the government making insurance companies rich.

If someone's dog is out of control and untrained, and attacks someone, make them pay for damages, and if they don't have money, sue them for their assets. But I see no reason to involve insurance companies.

Of course no one is going to fucking agree to that.

why would they have to agree? it's the law here that you have to have insurance to drive your car, if you don't they take your car away, why couldn't we do the same thing to dog owners?

I agree they should take responsibility, I do not agree with the insurance part. I'm generally sick of the government making insurance companies rich.

If someone's dog is out of control and untrained, and attacks someone, make them pay for damages, and if they don't have money, sue them for their assets. But I see no reason to involve insurance companies.

sounds even better, lets make a law that makes it easier for me to get their stuff if their dog attacks me.

why would they have to agree? it's the law here that you have to have insurance to drive your car, if you don't they take your car away, why couldn't we do the same thing to dog owners?

Probably because cars cause many more injuries than dogs, and an astronmically higher number of deaths.

Just a thought.

Probably because cars cause many more injuries than dogs, and an astronmically higher number of deaths.

Just a thought.

meh.

why would they have to agree? it's the law here that you have to have insurance to drive your car, if you don't they take your car away, why couldn't we do the same thing to dog owners?
Probably because of the complete difference in those two things. It isn't complete chance that your dog will attack some one or some other dog. It is like insuring your kids until they are 18 because they might break something somewhere some time.

I like the idea of insurance paying for dog attacks...I'm not so sure if we should create a specific insurance policy just for that though...that would be rather idiotic given the way insurance companies are so shitty.

Instead, I would suggest some sort of governmentally created insurance policy...I'm not entirely certain how it would work entirely, but it's a better idea than turning to private insurance.

quite frankly if a dog ate my kid i wouldn't give a fuck if the thing was insured, i'd want that dog destroyed and the owner locked up or, at the very least, banned from keeping and/or training animals for life.

quite frankly if a dog ate my kid i wouldn't give a fuck if the thing was insured, i'd want that dog destroyed and the owner locked up or, at the very least, banned from keeping and/or training animals for life.

True. Although, if a kid was beating a dog, then maybe they got what they deserved, as the kid might grow up to be another serial killer. (since many serial killers mistreat and abuse animals growing up)

A dog that attacks unproved should, sadly, be put down. The owners should face jail time, and pay for all damages the dog causes.

No, ban idiot owners.

Those stories are horrible! I'll show a good pit bull story, however!


http://dogsinthenews.com/stories/070301a.php

That story is heartbreaking! Reading the last little bit and then looking at the picture is hard to stomach.

That sucks. It goes to show though how loyal all dogs can be (if raised the correct way), risking their own safety for those they love.

Personally, I find specific breeds of dog pointless. I own mutts, I have owned breeds and mutts, and I will always own mutts.

They're generally longer lived (low risk of receiving two recessive, inhibiting genes). I find them, personally, to be more capable. Mutts and mixed breeds can be trained pretty well to do different tasks, yet they'll retain their ingenuity, creating a very capable creature. They're also calmer (which is part of the training), and easier to manage in groups (but do yourself a favor and only keep one or two).

I don't think any breed should be banned, but I can understand regulating certain breeds--that is, make sure that if somebody gets a "fighting" breed, that they are responsible enough to handle them. I wish breeders themselves would be more responsible about doing this.

I am entirely in favor of holding owners legally and financially responsible for any harm caused by their dogs, but I don't really think "dog insurance" is the way to do it, largely because I can't come up with any way of requiring it that wouldn't involve a lot of people with entirely harmless doggies (like my own) having to waste money on policies they don't need, and, well, if it's not required, it doesn't really have much of a point.

I also think banning specific breeds is silly. One of my high school friends had three huge Rottweilers, and they were pretty much the least scary dogs imaginable. About the only way one of them would have hurt you might be by knocking you over in their desperate need to give you kisses. A friend now has a pit bull puppy, whose name is Snookums. It suits him well. 'Nuff said. :p

I hate insurance with a passion, but one thing they do is figure the odds of a loss. I'll bet if everyone was required to register their dog and pay insurance based on risk there would be a lot less of certain breeds known for their temperament. Just like some cars require higher insurance because they tend to get into accidents.

I really don't understand the "macho" thing of having a dangerous breed of dog. Once on the mail route I had a dog that was, fortunately, tied up with a log chain. He got in the window and all I could see was teeth. The chain was short enough that I backed out and he was pulled out of the car. We have refused to deliver anything to their door since.

I understand a guard dog that will bark when a stranger comes, but not a vicious dog.

I understand a guard dog that will bark when a stranger comes, but not a vicious dog.

Pretty much all dogs will bark, for one reason or another. Ours do all the time when someone is nearby, especially if they enter the house, though usually if the stranger has gotten that far it's because our dogs want to be able to fully inspect them and be pet by them, to ensure they will not harm us.

I want to support this point. A dog is a pack animal. If you only have one dog, it will accept the humans as it's pack. But if you start getting numbers of dogs, they will start to form a pack outside of the human family. Then they will (more likely) protect their pack against humans.

That's only if you don't make it clear that you are the alpha leader of the pack. After a certain point that isn't really doable, but you can have up to three or four dogs without any real problems. Our two dogs understand quite clearly that we are the leaders, even if Pepper makes it very clear that she's not fond of it...the looks she gives us, I swear....

(but do yourself a favor and only keep one or two).

I want to support this point. A dog is a pack animal. If you only have one dog, it will accept the humans as it's pack. But if you start getting numbers of dogs, they will start to form a pack outside of the human family. Then they will (more likely) protect their pack against humans.

I hate insurance with a passion, but one thing they do is figure the odds of a loss. I'll bet if everyone was required to register their dog and pay insurance based on risk there would be a lot less of certain breeds known for their temperament. Just like some cars require higher insurance because they tend to get into accidents.

I really don't understand the "macho" thing of having a dangerous breed of dog. Once on the mail route I had a dog that was, fortunately, tied up with a log chain. He got in the window and all I could see was teeth. The chain was short enough that I backed out and he was pulled out of the car. We have refused to deliver anything to their door since.

I understand a guard dog that will bark when a stranger comes, but not a vicious dog.

Well, some breeds have the "dangerous" label, yes, but I don't see any reason not to get one just because of that... they still make fine dogs, as long as you raise them well.

Well, some breeds have the "dangerous" label, yes, but I don't see any reason not to get one just because of that... they still make fine dogs, as long as you raise them well.

There are a lot of breeds that make fine dogs and many of them you don't need to be overly careful about how you raise them. There has to be another reason to own a breed that is known to have traits (at least in some blood lines) that are dangerous. What is that reason if it isn't "macho"? What advantage does one of those breeds have over a less aggressive breed?

There are a lot of breeds that make fine dogs and many of them you don't need to be overly careful about how you raise them. There has to be another reason to own a breed that is known to have traits (at least in some blood lines) that are dangerous. What is that reason if it isn't "macho"? What advantage does one of those breeds have over a less aggressive breed?

Well, I do know one friend of mine who got a pit bull from a shelter (it was going to be destroyed in a few days, too...) because it seemed so playful. One of the best dogs I've ever met. Pit bulls in general are actually very friendly towards humans and make loyal pets. Any breed out there has its share of positive traits.

Indeed, the most titled dog of any breed ever was a pit bull. One of the best drug-sniffing dogs in the US is a pit bull that was found in a freezer during a drug bust.

I've had plenty of friends who have had "dangerous" breeds of dogs, and their dogs were no scarier than any other I've been around. The thing is, with a lot of these breeds, it's a self- fulfilling prophecy. The sort of person who wants a tough, mean dog is likely to get the "dangerous" breeds. They'll then raise them in such a way that they are indeed dangerous. Sad, isn't it?

I recently rethought my position on this.

Let me ask this:

Is it any different to ban a particular breed of dog because of their potential to be used for illegal activities, abuse and possibly even lethal negligence than it is to ban certain types of firearms?

I wonder how many people favor gun control and think dog control is stupid?

I'm on the 'regulate certain breeds' side of the fence right now, but barely. I find myself wishing I could regulate certain breeds of people instead. :p

I work at a dog grooming shop. My boss has been grooming dogs of all shapes and sizes (including pit bulls, rottweillers, and multiple breeds of police dogs) for over 20 years. The worst injury she has ever seen was a bite by a cocker spaniel that sent her assistant to the hospital where she had to have major reconstructive surgery on her face. The assumption that only big dogs cause major damage is unfortunate and misinformed. IMHO, dog owners should bear the responsibility of any damage to a person caused by their dog as if they had done it themselves. If my German Shepherd Dog bit someone and seriously injured them it would be MY FAULT for not training him properly and/or restraining him if he is aggressive.

Not that I would know an awful lot of dogs myself, but I figure there must be a reason why the prefered breeds for dogfighting are pittbulls and rottweilers and the like, and not spaniels and chihuahuas?

sounds even better, lets make a law that makes it easier for me to get their stuff if their dog attacks me.

What would you do with a run-down trailer and a pair of unwashed underpants? :confused:

in cameroi we don't ban breeds, we ban breeders and breeding.

the cameroi canid is a fun, friendly and cheerful mutt!

=^^=
.../\...

Probably because of the complete difference in those two things. It isn't complete chance that your dog will attack some one or some other dog. It is like insuring your kids until they are 18 because they might break something somewhere some time.

There is an insurance for that, and though it's not compulsory I personally would advise everyone with kids to have it.
You might drive your cars for decades without a claim, and yet you're still obliged to have insurance. Insurance is designed to cover IN CASE there is an accident. Or an attack.

Banning is maybe a little bit extreme but it might be a good idea to require some form of training (some sort of dog-license, like a drivers license) of the owner so that these types of dogs only come in the hands of people who can handle them well (maybe also exclude people with small children, most of the dog attacks I've heard have been against little children)

What would you do with a run-down trailer and a pair of unwashed underpants? :confused:

maybe I could garnish their wages, or something.

Most of the dog fighters around here live in cheap housing (mostly government provided) but every freaking one of them has an Escalade or something. I think if their dog bites me, they should have to give me their $50K SUV.

I recently rethought my position on this.

Let me ask this:

Is it any different to ban a particular breed of dog because of their potential to be used for illegal activities, abuse and possibly even lethal negligence than it is to ban certain types of firearms?

I wonder how many people favor gun control and think dog control is stupid?

I'm on the 'regulate certain breeds' side of the fence right now, but barely. I find myself wishing I could regulate certain breeds of people instead. :p

That's interesting, I like that.

maybe I could garnish their wages, or something.

Most of the dog fighters around here live in cheap housing (mostly government provided) but every freaking one of them has an Escalade or something. I think if their dog bites me, they should have to give me their $50K SUV.

I'd be wrapping my arm in bacon and heading to their house if that was the case

I hate insurance with a passion, but one thing they do is figure the odds of a loss. I'll bet if everyone was required to register their dog and pay insurance based on risk there would be a lot less of certain breeds known for their temperament. Just like some cars require higher insurance because they tend to get into accidents.

I really don't understand the "macho" thing of having a dangerous breed of dog. Once on the mail route I had a dog that was, fortunately, tied up with a log chain. He got in the window and all I could see was teeth. The chain was short enough that I backed out and he was pulled out of the car. We have refused to deliver anything to their door since.

I understand a guard dog that will bark when a stranger comes, but not a vicious dog.

The time I was most scared of getting bit while on the route, was when I was cornered by two daschunds that were barking and growling. They popped out of the garage (through a doggy door I hadn't seen), and got between the LLV and myself, after I'd gotten out to make a delivery to the door (I had a cert). Luckily for me, the ruckus they raised alerted the owner, and the dogs became friendly once he arrived. Once he left though, they started back up with the barking and growling (I was back in the LLV at that point).

Wow -- y'all have been busy while I slept. I have a lot of points to answer, so this may be a little long-winded. My apologies, but bear with me please.

fine, dog insurance for everyone!

So I should have to pay for insurance on my dogs because there are idiots out there who don't properly train their dogs? I'm sorry, but no. My dogs are trained. They don't get aggressive with humans and are no threat to anyone. If, by some bizarre turn of events, they did manage to hurt someone I would fully expect to pay for all damages and/or face jail time. But I won't pay some ridiculous premium every month just because I own large dogs.

A dog is a pack animal. If you only have one dog, it will accept the humans as it's pack. But if you start getting numbers of dogs, they will start to form a pack outside of the human family. Then they will (more likely) protect their pack against humans.

Yes, a dog is a pack animal. This is one of the keys to training a dog. As pack animals, dogs will do ANYTHING (and I do mean anything) for their pack leader. I have four dogs, three of which are quite large. When I introduced each of them to my household, I made it clear that I and my husband are the alphas. We call the shots. I have no fear whatsoever of my dogs doing harm to anyone because they are well-trained and they respect the pack order. Humans first, and they take their commands from us. They go to community events, hang out at the dog park, even have marched in a parade or two. The neighborhood kids play with them when we're out and about. We've never had an incident, or even the threat of an incident. It doesn't matter how many dogs you have, you just have to train them properly and they'll be fine.

There are a lot of breeds that make fine dogs and many of them you don't need to be overly careful about how you raise them. There has to be another reason to own a breed that is known to have traits (at least in some blood lines) that are dangerous. What is that reason if it isn't "macho"? What advantage does one of those breeds have over a less aggressive breed?

I rescue dogs. I own a German Shepherd Dog and a GSD mix. In some places these are considered to be dangerous dogs, and they have been listed as breeds to be banned in a couple of places. I did not get them because it's the "macho" thing to do. I got them because they needed a home. They needed discipline and someone who could properly handle them. I have worked with animals for a few years now and done a lot of training, and I knew I could provide these dogs with the training they needed. If, when I was looking for another dog, someone were to have brought me a pit bull or rottie, I would have taken them in without a problem. I think it's unfortunate that there has been such a stigma placed on these breeds just because some idiot humans have misused and abused them. They are great dogs, as long as they have been properly handled and trained.

Not that I would know an awful lot of dogs myself, but I figure there must be a reason why the prefered breeds for dogfighting are pittbulls and rottweilers and the like, and not spaniels and chihuahuas?

Big dogs put on a better show about it. Chihuahua fighting wouldn't be as popular because they don't look as big and scary. Incidentally, one of the reasons that Pit Bulls were chosen as fighting dogs is because of their innate loyalty to their handlers. When dog fighting began, the handlers were in the ring with the dogs. When things got too bloody, the handlers would pull the dogs apart. Pit Bulls were great for this because when the handler reached in there to get his dog, he didn't have to worry about being bitten -- the dogs wouldn't touch the humans. The handlers could get as close as they needed and still feel completely safe. It's only in recent years that they have been trained to be vicious to everything that moves.

What would you do with a run-down trailer and a pair of unwashed underpants? :confused:

Not everyone that owns a vicious dog is trailer trash (at least, in the financial sense).

Not that I would know an awful lot of dogs myself, but I figure there must be a reason why the prefered breeds for dogfighting are pittbulls and rottweilers and the like, and not spaniels and chihuahuas?
Well, a part of the reason is that certain breeds have more pain tolerance, gameness, and yes, strength and size. But not because they want to rip stuff apart.

Banning is maybe a little bit extreme but it might be a good idea to require some form of training (some sort of dog-license, like a drivers license) of the owner so that these types of dogs only come in the hands of people who can handle them well (maybe also exclude people with small children, most of the dog attacks I've heard have been against little children)

I agree, except the part about little children. If the owner raises the dog properly, it won't be any threat at all to children. A dog of any breed makes a great pet and companion for a child if raised properly.

Well, I do know one friend of mine who got a pit bull from a shelter (it was going to be destroyed in a few days, too...) because it seemed so playful. One of the best dogs I've ever met. Pit bulls in general are actually very friendly towards humans and make loyal pets. Any breed out there has its share of positive traits.

This is true of most of the so-called "dangerous breeds." If properly raised, these animals are usually calmer and more docile than the smaller breeds. There really aren't any "dangerous breeds." There are, however, dangerous and aggressive animals. You hear more about certain breeds because they are larger, stronger dogs and thus are (a) more likely to do huge amounts of damage when they do attack and (b) more likely to be trained to violence because of a.

Pit bulls, rotties, dobermans, etc. are no more inherently aggressive than poodles, Jack Russels, etc. Based on what I've seen, I'd actually say that any inherent statistical difference would be that the larger breeds tend to be much more docile and difficult to provoke. They have just been more often misused and are bigger and stronger than the smaller breeds.


Not that I would know an awful lot of dogs myself, but I figure there must be a reason why the prefered breeds for dogfighting are pittbulls and rottweilers and the like, and not spaniels and chihuahuas?

Bigger and stronger. Bred as working dogs, rather than "toy" dogs.

Mastiffs are also a preferred breed in many dogfighting rings.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

The dogs that are most responsible

Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

The dogs that are most responsible

Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."

To make this useful to the discussion, I'd need to see at least two more questions answered:

1) How many dog bites were there overall - not just those with serious injuries - and what breeds were involved. Considering that this would have to be survey based (as non-serious injuries generally aren't reported), it would be difficult to obtain.

2) How were the dogs in question treated? How were the socialized and trained?

http://www.dogexpert.com/Dog%20Bite%20Statistics/DogBiteStatistics.html

The breeds most often involved in fatal attacks are Rottweilers and Pit bulls.

In the United States, pit bulls make up one to three per cent of the overall dog population and cause more than 50 per cent of serious attacks.

From 1979 to 1998, at least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in bite related deaths. Pit Bulls and Rottweilers were involved in more than 50 percent of these incidences.

In a study reported by a retired professor from California State University at Chino, Robert Plum, it was found that one dog in 55 will bite someone seriously during the course of a year. With respect to breed differences in the tendency to inflict serious injury, Plumb estimates that when a pit bull bites a human, one in 16 (e.g. 1/16) will inflict serious injury; this contrasts with a ratio of 1/296 Dobermans, and 1/156 German shepherds.

Dog Bite Statistics from: Texas, 1997, 1998; Australia (pdf file);
The Netherlands (pdf file), New Zealand, State of Nevada (USA) (pdf file)

[QUOTE

Not that I condone it, but if they were doing it right, the dogs would only be dangerous to other animals, especially dogs.[/QUOTE]

Well that's Ok then

Next time someone's guide dog is savaged by a pitt bull it's ok.

Here in the UK there are a couple of breeds that are banned - but the law doesn't really do much.

I do think owning a dog should be similar to owning a car. Before you can have one you should pass a test. Some breeds would require an advanced test. All dogs should be insured and registered.

Oh and anyone involved in dog fighting in any way should be shot.

Well that's Ok then

Next time someone's guide dog is savaged by a pitt bull it's ok.
Excellent job missing the point and providing an absurd example.

I do think owning a dog should be similar to owning a car. Before you can have one you should pass a test. Some breeds would require an advanced test. All dogs should be insured and registered..
The problem is that is completely impossible. The only way that is possible is if a central, incorruptible agency handles the breeding and selling of all dogs because every dog sold will have to be neutered to prevent breeding outside of the agency.

To make this useful to the discussion, I'd need to see at least two more questions answered:

1) How many dog bites were there overall - not just those with serious injuries - and what breeds were involved. Considering that this would have to be survey based (as non-serious injuries generally aren't reported), it would be difficult to obtain.

2) How were the dogs in question treated? How were the socialized and trained?

http://www.unaughtydogs.com/id25.html

This site gives a breakdown by breed. It's two years of a county in Nevada. I don't know how one would get a breakdown of people getting "nipped" if it didn't break the skin or need medical attention. On the other hand, I don't worry too much if I get nipped. The only time I've actually been bit on the mail route was by a yippy little thing with a mouth a half inch long. I'll take one of those every day rather than a single encounter with a dog that wants to kill me.

How were the dogs treated? Well, some dogs require special treatment and special knowledge and some don't. Some dogs are simply socialized by being with the family and some need special training. It's those that need that special treatment and training that are the problem. Perhaps the solution is if an owner wants a macho dog the owner should be required to take classes, be tested and licensed to see if the owner has that knowledge.

How were the dogs treated? Well, some dogs require special treatment and special knowledge and some don't. Some dogs are simply socialized by being with the family and some need special training. It's those that need that special treatment and training that are the problem. Perhaps the solution is if an owner wants a macho dog the owner should be required to take classes, be tested and licensed to see if the owner has that knowledge.
Like I said, completely impossible.

The problem is that is completely impossible. The only way that is possible is if a central, incorruptible agency handles the breeding and selling of all dogs because every dog sold will have to be neutered to prevent breeding outside of the agency.

Well, most cities in the US already register and sometimes tax dogs. And tax evasion is the easiest law to enforce. So it might be that in order to register a dog a person would have to show knowledge about the breed. If the dog wasn't registered and a neighbor complained the officials could first look to see if the dog was registered. If it wasn't, there could be automatic confiscation.

Well, most cities in the US already register and sometimes tax dogs. And tax evasion is the easiest law to enforce.
Really, do they have dog police that irregularly go around and check to see if people have dogs and are those dogs registered? It is really easy to enforce tax evasion because taxes are on money received, which would be documented elsewhere. Hiding animals is a completely different story.

How were the dogs treated? Well, some dogs require special treatment and special knowledge and some don't. Some dogs are simply socialized by being with the family and some need special training. It's those that need that special treatment and training that are the problem. Perhaps the solution is if an owner wants a macho dog the owner should be required to take classes, be tested and licensed to see if the owner has that knowledge.

This isn't a breed problem, it's an individual dog problem. All dogs need socialization and training and all dogs are likely to become aggressive without it. To pretend that only a select few breeds need such treatment is ridiculous. An individual dog of any breed may need extra attention, as personalities vary greatly. One dog may be properly socialized completely in the home, while another may need more human and animal contact. One dog may be easily acclimated to children, while another may be more difficult. One dog may have a history of treatment that makes it more likely to be aggressive, while another may have lived a better life. And so on.... But these issues come up in all breeds (as well as mixed breeds).

Is it more important in some breeds? Only in the sense that some breeds are likely to do more damage if you don't. But socialization and training are a necessity to prevent this behavior whether your dog is a poodle or a rottweiler. The difference is that an improperly raised poodle is more likely to barely knick the skin while the improperly raised rottie is more likely to cause a hospital visit.

http://www.dogexpert.com/Dog%20Bite%20Statistics/DogBiteStatistics.html

- The majority of dog bites are never reported to local authorities.

- Mixed breeds and not pure bred dogs are the type of dog most often involved in inflicting bites to people. The pure-bred dogs most often involved are German shepherds and Chow chows.

- Canines not spayed or neutered are three times more likely to bite than sterilized ones.

Really, do they have dog police that irregularly go around and check to see if people have dogs and are those dogs registered? It is really easy to enforce tax evasion because taxes are on money received, which would be documented elsewhere. Hiding animals is a completely different story.

It would be like a lot of minor laws, the police don't look for it until a neighbor complains. In this case the dog catcher could be called to check on questionable dogs. If the dog isn't properly registered and the tax not paid the dog goes to the happy hunting grounds in the sky.

Is it more important in some breeds? Only in the sense that some breeds are likely to do more damage if you don't. But socialization and training are a necessity to prevent this behavior whether your dog is a poodle or a rottweiler. The difference is that an improperly raised poodle is more likely to barely knick the skin while the improperly raised rottie is more likely to cause a hospital visit.

The whole point of the thread.

- The majority of dog bites are never reported to local authorities.

- Mixed breeds and not pure bred dogs are the type of dog most often involved in inflicting bites to people. The pure-bred dogs most often involved are German shepherds and Chow chows.

- Canines not spayed or neutered are three times more likely to bite than sterilized ones.

So we add mutts that resemble the target breeds and we require that every dog be spayed or neutered. And if a bite isn't harmful why should it count?

http://www.neuticles.com/index1.html for the dog that needs the look but not the hormones

So we add mutts that resemble the target breeds and we require that every dog be spayed or neutered. And if a bite isn't harmful why should it count?
And your opinion can now be discarded.

PS: There are three breed sizes of poodle recognized. Toy, medium (20-30lbs), and large (same size as pitbulls or rottweilers).

The whole point of the thread.

No, it isn't. The point of the thread is discussing whether or not certain breeds should be because they happen to be large, strong, and can be a problem if not properly trained.

In my opinion, nobody who doesn't train a dog properly should be allowed to have that dog. I don't care if it's a chihuahua or a rottie.

It would be like a lot of minor laws, the police don't look for it until a neighbor complains. In this case the dog catcher could be called to check on questionable dogs. If the dog isn't properly registered and the tax not paid the dog goes to the happy hunting grounds in the sky.

That's idiotic. You kill the dog for the actions of its owner.....why, exactly?

So we add mutts that resemble the target breeds and we require that every dog be spayed or neutered.

Why add any particular breeds when all breeds can be dangerous? How about we require all dog owners to treat the animals properly?

And if a bite isn't harmful why should it count?

It is still aggression towards human beings and still indicates that the dog is dangerous to others.

If a person who is large and strong attacks someone, he will likely do more damage than someone who is smaller and weaker. Does that mean that only the larger, stronger man's actions count as assault?

And your opinion can now be discarded.

PS: There are three breed sizes of poodle recognized. Toy, medium (20-30lbs), and large (same size as pitbulls or rottweilers).

What did I say about poodles?

No, it isn't. The point of the thread is discussing whether or not certain breeds should be because they happen to be large, strong, and can be a problem if not properly trained.

In my opinion, nobody who doesn't train a dog properly should be allowed to have that dog. I don't care if it's a chihuahua or a rottie.
agreed


That's idiotic. You kill the dog for the actions of its owner.....why, exactly?
I can't kill the owner.


Why add any particular breeds when all breeds can be dangerous? How about we require all dog owners to treat the animals properly? It is still aggression towards human beings and still indicates that the dog is dangerous to others.
agreed, but there is a difference between getting shot with a BB gun and a 30/30.


If a person who is large and strong attacks someone, he will likely do more damage than someone who is smaller and weaker. Does that mean that only the larger, stronger man's actions count as assault?

If Mike Tyson got in a fist fight with a 98 lb. geek, I wonder who the jury would believe?

agreed

Good then. You would support regulation on all dogs, instead of just select breeds, then?

I can't kill the owner.

Why kill either? You're talking about having an unregistered dog. At most, that's worthy of a fine and putting the dog into an adoption service.

agreed, but there is a difference between getting shot with a BB gun and a 30/30.

Either can kill you. Either can seriously injure you. The latter is more likely to do so, but either can. If someone is shooting others with a BB gun, we shouldn't ignore it just because it didn't hurt that much. One of these days, she could do serious damage.

If Mike Tyson got in a fist fight with a 98 lb. geek, I wonder who the jury would believe?

You obviously completely missed the point, so I'll ask my question again:

If a person who is large and strong attacks someone, he will likely do more damage than someone who is smaller and weaker. Does that mean that only the larger, stronger man's actions count as assault?

Or, to use your example, do we ignore someone who goes around shooting others with BB guns simple because some people use shotguns instead?

Good then. You would support regulation on all dogs, instead of just select breeds, then? yes, but more on those that are more likely to maim and kill



Why kill either? You're talking about having an unregistered dog. At most, that's worthy of a fine and putting the dog into an adoption service.
An adoption service that can find people that will retrain ill mannered, ill trained dogs.


Either can kill you. Either can seriously injure you. The latter is more likely to do so, but either can. If someone is shooting others with a BB gun, we shouldn't ignore it just because it didn't hurt that much. One of these days, she could do serious damage.
agreed, but if someone has a truly deadly weapon, that person gets attention first


You obviously completely missed the point, so I'll ask my question again:

If a person who is large and strong attacks someone, he will likely do more damage than someone who is smaller and weaker. Does that mean that only the larger, stronger man's actions count as assault?

Or, to use your example, do we ignore someone who goes around shooting others with BB guns simple because some people use shotguns instead?

You don't ignore anything that can harm, but if 911 gets a call about someone with an assault weapon at the same time they get a call about a kid with a BB gun, which do you want them to answer first?