BSL.. why or why not?

If we decide to ban all breeds that have caused human fatalities, we will not only be banning pis, rots, dobes, etc, but also airdales, huskies, Akitas, Mastiffs, English Bulldogs, and Malimutes.

I don't really have time to read the other responses up to here before class...but i know that a pomeranian has been involved in a fatal attack...so i think the weight thing is ridiculous! uhhh i hate BSL!

But in order to stamp out animal cruelty - fighting, or tormenting a dog until he is insanely aggressive and will attack anyone who enters the property- they feel they must ban the breeds most commonly used for those practices. It seems to be the best route to end the needless suffering of the abused.

If anyone really believes that banning a particular dog breed will do anything at all to stop these practices, then they don't understand that selectively breeding for bad temperament in any breed can create overly aggressive dogs. 
 
I say "overly aggressive" because there are very, very few dogs that are not aggressive (i.e. will bite) under at least one set of conditions.  That is why every doggie first aid kit should contain some kind of muzzle. 
 
There is a good chance that the boy (described above) who was severely bitten by a GSD would have been protected by the pet pit bull that was destroyed.   It is a shame that we don't have any databases for recording which breeds best protect their owners from harm.

I really loved reading everyone's comments and I couldn't add any more.  This is a topic that is close to me and it makes me happy to see people against BSL who own dogs other than those targeted.  I have had too many problems with people who are supposedly "dog people" but believe all the hype about pit bulls and are terrified of my dogs..makes me so sad.
   
Just one comment:

APBT and other “bully” breeds were bred for protection as guard dogs, NOT as attacking menaces

 
I can't speak for other bully breeds (mastiff,ect) but itbulls were actually bred as working farm dogs to control bulls.  Bull baiting in England during the 19th century was a very popular sport based on the dog's ability. (Now outlawed of course though).  Historically pit bulls were bred to be family dogs who worked and protected the farm.  But, I don't believe protection was their ultimate purpose.  Unfortunatly, many pitbulls have been bred with mastiffs and it's hard to tell the difference today.  Many of those large strains of pitbulls are not purebred.  A great book about working pitbull is Diane Jessup's book "The Working pitbull." It's a very imformative, objective book written by a lady with great knowledge about the breed.

I don't see how asking people who own breeds that cause the most damage to people to have additional licensing requirements is taking away the responsibility from the the humans.

"the most damage"???  [sm=crazy.gif]
 
Let's apply that term to cars.  If there is one big car in an area with 1000 little cars, then in that area statistically most occurrences of damage will be caused by little cars.  
 
In any particular incident a big car can produce more damage than a small car due to its weight.  However, lack of car maintenance (e.g. brakes) significantly increases the chance that a big car will have an accident and cause damage. 
 
Should we penalize the owners of small cars in that area because those cars produce the most overall damage?  Should we penalize the owners of big cars because their weight can cause more damage in single incident?  Would these penalities help to prevent damage?
 
Penalizing the bad drivers and the folks that don't get proper maintenance (i.e. pass inspections) makes much more sense to me.  Those penalities actually make people change their actions in a productive manner.  [sm=wink2.gif]
 
As far as "additional licensing requirements" for dogs, how about additional license fees for all healthy, adult dogs that can not ass a "licensing test" for good behavior?  Dog-dog aggression would be excluded and exemptions would be allowed for young and sick dogs. 
 
Unfortunately, it is not as easy to enforce dog licensing requirements as it is to enforce car and car driver requirements.  Car stuff isn't all that easy to enforce either.  [sm=smack.gif]

i'm glad this thread has remained civil.. after i posed it, i nearly wished i hadn't.  thanks for not making me regret it... everyone- both pro and con arguers.
 
my comments to the pro people are this:
 
it's a slippery slope.  many people who are pro BLS are so because they don't worry about a breed ban ever affecting them personally.  in a BSL culture, NO breed is safe.  just because your breed is viewed as a docile working dog now doesn't mean that it always will be. 
 
as chewbecca said, WHO will determine the length of the list?  i've been nipped by several border collies and poms, bitten by my childhood lab mix, and flat out attacked by a german shepard.  my dog tek was full out attacked by a german shorthaired pointer; an attack that required stiches in teks leg but left absolutely NOT ONE MARK on the GSP.  none of these bites were reported.  NOT ONE.  and that, frankly skews the bite statistics dramatically, making it impossible to hide behind statistics to back up the argument.
 
i believe very very strongly in licensing of ALL dogs in ALL communities.  i've said this before, and i'll say it again- this is a job for the federal goverment.  my experience with rural communities is that people don't think the laws apply to them because their locations are remote.  actually, i see people here in dallas running their dogs off leash in the park across the street from me, which is expressly forbidden by the law.  nobody says a WORD to them, and the police often have a mobile unit stationed right there at the park.. so WHY NOT?  it's a question of money, and icking your battles.  the cops don't think they should waste their time ticketing the guy running his lab or weimereiner because they're "not dangerous".  you can bet that if i pulled that stunt, (which, for the safety of my dogs, i never would) i'd be ticketed and perhaps lose my dogs because they are "dangerous".  THAT is why i propose FEDERAL involvement in licensing requirements, with federal money earmarked to enforce the laws.  people seem to have more respect for federal law, and federal law trumps local law in most cases.

Moderator here...
I am in complete agreement with your first sentance, badrap (including the reservation about the topic lol! I admit it!). I am again...impressed by the civility being shown and I hope that it continues...and if I can even be MORE demanding lmao...I hope it spills over to other areas of the forum where things can also at times, get quite heated.

My biggest problem with BSL is that the irresponsible owners out there who are raising their dogs carelessly are just going to get another breed. Let's say they have to give up their pit bull so they go out and get a GSD and that dog grows up and bites someone. So what do you do then? Ban GSDs? Keep on banning dogs until there are no more problems? It doesn't work like that. There will always be more dogs and more breeds for those irresponsible people to get their hands on and ruin.

Also, people who profit from vicious dogs (illegal dog-fighting, etc) are still going to breed and own dangerous dogs because what they're doing is illegal and wrong anyway, so what's one more law to break?

I'm all for strict dog laws. They don't bother me as long as they're reasonble, but this isn't reasonable.

ORIGINAL: janet_rose

I don't see how asking people who own breeds that cause the most damage to people to have additional licensing requirements is taking away the responsibility from the the humans.

"the most damage"???  [sm=crazy.gif]


Unfortunately, it is not as easy to enforce dog licensing requirements as it is to enforce car and car driver requirements.  Car stuff isn't all that easy to enforce either.  [sm=smack.gif]

 
When I used the hrase "most damage" I meant it as a measure of the severity of the damage. 
 
Enforcement of licensing requirements may not be easy, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them or something is inherently wrong with them. 

ORIGINAL: badrap

my comments to the pro people are this:

it's a slippery slope.  many people who are pro BLS are so because they don't worry about a breed ban ever affecting them personally.  in a BSL culture, NO breed is safe.  just because your breed is viewed as a docile working dog now doesn't mean that it always will be. 

I think I'm one of the only people on this thread who has said anything remotely pro BSL, so I'll reply.    I think there is often an assumption that people may be pro BSL because they do  not have the breed in question or fear the breed in question.  We have three dogs at a home: a miniature schnauzer, a pit bull, and a pit bull/lab mix.  While none of my dogs are agressive, I know that if any person was going to sustain permanent damage from one of my dogs it would likely be from the pit bull or the pit bull/lab mix. 

Also, all BSL does not have to be the same.  That being said, I don't support bans on any breed, but I believe that people who take large, powerful breeds into their homes have an additional potential liability on their hands.  I believe saying "any breed can harm" side steps that issue.  A novice owner is probably going to have an easier time controlling a beagle than they are a rottie.  If an additional licensing requirement could deter a person from owning a breed that is not suitable for them, then I'm all for it.  Of course, an additional licensing requirement isn't a cure all proposition.  It is just something that I see that could be a step in protecting certain breeds if properly enforced.

I have a question for you all maybe a little off this topic but worth investigating.  This is meant especially for the bully breed owners as they are the ones most likely to be affected by any ban.
 
What can you do in your community to lessen the problems that are seen or perceived that would prompt people to seek out a breed ban.  I am thinking about more that just going to the government meeting arguing your case.  I'm thinking more on the lines of educational outreach, insuring that enforcement of existing laws are followed and so on.
 
 

i would like to say i have a good answer for this.  i don't. 
 
 ideally, i would report stray pits to AC and they would pick them up, thus avoiding a confrontation.  but as i have posted before, they don't respond in time. 
 
ideally, i would do community outreach by osmosis,  in that my well behaved dogs would be ambassadors to everyone who sees me walking them around the city.  there might be more that i could do here, and i will research it on another forum, and see what i come up with.
 
as to what to do when i come across dogs in need... this is the toughest issue.  you can't help people who refuse help, and you can't steal dogs.  unfortunately, there are going to be people who want attack dogs, and who can't control them because they're NOT trained guard dogs, just bored dogs who get beat with a stick.  i don't know how to solve this problem.  i really really don't.
 

ORIGINAL: timsdat

I have a question for you all maybe a little off this topic but worth investigating.  This is meant especially for the bully breed owners as they are the ones most likely to be affected by any ban.

What can you do in your community to lessen the problems that are seen or perceived that would prompt people to seek out a breed ban.  I am thinking about more that just going to the government meeting arguing your case.  I'm thinking more on the lines of educational outreach, insuring that enforcement of existing laws are followed and so on.

Gypsy and I do dog safety classes at the local schools.  We also appear at my work (the library) on various occasions when asked. We walk every day and kids always want to pet Gypsy.  I always tell them about her and let them know that she loves evryone.

I also have written articles for the local papers against BSL.  One of these was published and was the subject of a LOT of conversations in our town (I work for th ecity and was told by our AC officer tha tthis was the case).

I don't agree with BSL. I know that there are some people who own pit bulls who are not good dog owners and "train" them to be agressive toward people, but I know a black lab that was meaner than any pit bull I have ever come across, and my understanding is that they are supposed to be one of the friendliest breeds. I don't think it was any coincidence that while this family owned labs, every lab they owned ended up biting people. They let them run around, no leash, and terrorize the neighborhood and the police wouldn't do anything about it for a long time. I also know a family that had a datson that bit almost anyone who visited their family's house.
By contrast, my uncle owned a wonderful pit bull, Queenie. When I was little, I loved going to my grandparent's house because I got to play with Queenie. I was supervised by my parents and Queenie was the most gentle, loyal, loving dog I have ever met, so much so that I cried when she passed away.  BSL in our town would've meant that I never knew Queenie or any of the other pit bulls that I have met with good owners. They are very graceful dogs, eager to please, and with the right owner, are some of my favorite dogs.
My cousin bred a pit bull terrier that won a championship and his mother was the, I think they said it was called "bitch of the year" several years in books on the pit bull. She was one of their favorite dogs, and they thought so much of her that when she was sick before she passed away, they tried their best to get her the best medical care so that she would recover. They still speak fondly of her to this day.
The problem is not with pit bulls, rotties, dobermans, or any other breeds targetted, it is with their owners. If a person is going to get this type of dog, they need to educate themselves and commit themselves to ensuring that the people who come into contact with the dog have a positive experience. If the person raises the dog to be mean, then there needs to be harsh penalties against the owner. The dog can't control who owns it. People who raise it to be mean punish it twice, once by their own actions, and then again by giving those who unfortunately haven't been able to meet the many wonderful dogs of that breed ammunition for trying to make broad generalizations from the actions of a few dogs.
Pit bull attacks (I'm speaking more of them because I have the most experience with knowing members of this breed) are far less than attacks by humans per year; yet, we don't say all humans are bad because of the actions of some bad apples.

I am totally against BSL.  While I can acknowledge that there are issues with some breeds tendencies to be more aggressive than others, I don't think that bsl is the answer to this problem. 
 
I currently have a Dobe, who made it a bit more difficult to get homeowners insurance.  He met my insurance agent & had to prove to him that he wasn't a "killer" (their words not mine) before the insurance company would write a policy for me. 
 
Instead of legislating against a certain breed, maybe we should push for legislation against a certain type of owner, who is not proactive to insure that their dog will not bite.

Does anyone know if BSL has been implemented in other countries?  Has BSL affected anyone's home directly?  Has there been any other animal species in the US that has been banned because of its perceived reputation?