The Pit Bull Ban: Yay or Nay

I understand your hesistations and used to share many of them.  I grew up in the bad area of town where pit bulls were kept outside on heavy chains and trained to fight.  I was very leery of them until I started working in a shelter. 

I'm going to say NAY on breed bans in general because a lot of the arguements made against pit bulls could apply (in an ignorant, stereotypical way) to my breed, German Shepherds.  So long as human aggression is not genetic, I don't want any dogs banned because of their breed!

ORIGINAL: IrishSetterGrl

I'm sort of for pit bull bans. While I realize that not all pit bulls are viscious attackers, the breed was originally bred for that purpose and all of them *have the potential* (and I mean *potential*, everyone) to kill someone easily,

 
If pit bull-type dogs had been developed to attack and kill people then the argument that they have a natural inclination to hurt people would be logical. HOWEVER they were not created to be aggressive with people. In fact it was the opppsite.
 
The goal when developing these fighting breeds was to create dogs that were aggressive with other dogs and absolutely gentle with eople. This way a human could handle the dogs and even pull them away from a fight. Having dogs that adored people was absolutely necessary when creating a dog meant to fight other dogs for sport.
 
Check out the Sports Illustrated article on the dogs seized at Vick's property. The folks caring for them report they are absolutely gentle and loving. Yes, some of these dogs have killed other dogs but that is because they are DOG aggressive.

Would I support BSL for breeds that were created to be aggressive toward people? I would seriously think about it.  I would consider the argument (flame away) there are some breeds that are not for novice owners and erhaps eople take a class before owning one----particularly breeds which were created to be independent flock guardians such as the Komondor or Anatolian Shepherd Dog.
 
From the Anatolian's standard:

  Highly territorial, he is a natural guard. Reserve around strangers and off its territory is acceptable.

 
I am not saying all of these dogs are bad or vicious or anything like that. But if  you want to argue that some breeds should be the subject of special laws based on their breed standard/history then I have some other breeds to nominate.
 
I would also suggest that we have CSL---criminal specific legistlation. Anyone with a criminal record that includes violence or felonies has to pass a test before owning a dog.

*Sigh*  Where to start.....

--pit bull bans DO NOT WORK.  The CDC, the agency who up until recently did fatal dog bite stats set up a task force to study whether or not breed bans were an effective way to reduce dog fatalities, and found that they were not.  There was a case where a family lived in an area where a pit bull ban came into place.  They had to have their family pet, a pit bull, PTS.  Shortly after that, the family's little boy was attacked by a GSD and got 300 stitches as a result.  Yep, that ban sure did its job....



--Pit bulls were *not* bred to "attack."  They were origanally bred for catching bulls during farm work, then bull baiting, then dog fighting.  Dog fighters took human aggression *very* seriously.   Man biters were shot for their trouble.  Other breeds have been used in dog fighting as well.  Do we ban those too?


--Dogs do not just "turn" on people.  They give warning signs, even if the people around them are too ignorant to read them.  In addition, the media rarely reports it if there were warnings sings--dogs that attack "without warning" make for far more sexy news then dogs that repeatedly gave signs of being aggressive.  Case in point--there was a pit bull attack in the Chicago area that was repoted to be "without warning."  Months later, in a *very* small article the Chicago Tribune reported that the dog that was the primary aggresser in the attack (not a pure bred pit bull, but a pit/presa mix) had been booted out of obedience for his aggressive behavior and the dogs vet had recommended that the dog be PTS, and the owner was seriously considering this--this was all BEFORE the attack.  Of course, it was reported that the attack happened "without warning."  In addition, if the owner DID see warning signs, do you *really* think that they would be like "Oh yeah, we knew Fluffy growled at every stranger he saw, but we thought that it would be OK for him to run loose anyway."  No, you have much less of a chance at being sued if you say "Wow, we had no idea he didn't like strangers.  We don't know where that came from."


--"Saving people's lives is more important than having the privilege of owning a certain breed of dog."

So we had better ban swimming pools too.  More children die in swimming pools then are killed by dogs.



--"Last, a lot of PBs are not treated well by their owners because some people just want a tough looking thing. If PBs were banned and the law actually enforced, I think more people would get dogs for the right reasons instead of getting one for a bully face."    

Really???  Tell that to Scotland Yard in London.  They have a pit bull ban in place there, and gang members are now starting to use Presas for fighting and guarding drug houses.  Have you ever seen a Presa?  They are MUCH larger then pits and UNLIKE pits were bred as man stoppers.  There are PLENTLY of tough looking dogs out there, many of which are gaining in popularity and many of which have been bred for a certain amount of human aggression.



--"While I know it is mostly (but not always) the owners fault when one attacks, the breed is still one capable of killing and a lot of pit bull owners do not restrain/discipline their PBs properly to make sure they do not, and it creates a dangerous environment for everyone without the proximity of so said dog."

No, it is ALWAYS the fault of the owner for the attack.  Dogs are not people and cannot be legally held responsible for their actions.  Therefore it is ALWAYS the dog owner's fault and the dog owner is the one who needs to be punished.



--Most people do not have any idea what a pit bull looks like.  Therefore, they are misidentified after attacks.  The dog in my sig, Sally, is probably all or mostly pit bull.  People have called her a boxer, boxer mix, lab mix, cane corso mix, and bull mastiff mix.  My own mother, who I have explained Sally's likely breeding to repeatedly, still thinks she is a rotweiler.  Please visit this web site [linkhttp://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html]http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html[/link] and see if you can actually identify the pit bull on your first try. 



--In a community near me, a pit bull ban was recently called for.  Do you know what the city officals response was?  They told the guy that they didn't really have a big dog bite issue, and of the dogs that did bite, the biggest offenders were labs.



--Where does such banning end?  Should we ban all breeds whose members have killed?  OK, then it is not just pits, but rots, dobes, GSDs, chow chows, huskies, malimutes, airedale terriers, akitas, english bulldogs, labs, and even a pom mix.  Should we ban all breeds labeled as "Very Dog Aggressive"?  Then according to the web site [linkhttp://www.dogbreedinfo.com]www.dogbreedinfo.com[/link] that would include nearly 30 breeds of dog.


--"I love all kinds of dogs"

Really?  Legislating them out of existance is an interesting way of showing it.  Sorry, but I take this subject VERY personally, because it directly effects my family.  Sally, Ellie, Tek, Rosie, Tyson, Dipstick, Brownie, and all the other bully breeds are, most assuredly dogs.  However, I don't see much love or concern for them or their futures in your post at all.


--I would suggest that before deciding that a certain breed not be allowed to exist, that you thoroughly educate yourself on said breed.  I have an excellant book called "The Working Pit Bull," by Diane Jessup, someone who knows the breed *very* well.  I know they carry it at Borders.  I would encourage you to flip through it if you are ever there.  If you cannot get your hands on one and are really interested, if you PM me I would be perfectly willing to lend you my copy--I will even pay the postage.[] 

ORIGINAL: IrishSetterGrl

the breed was originally bred for that purpose and all of them *have the potential* (and I mean *potential*, everyone) to kill someone easily, despite whether they have shown aggression before or not.

I know polarexpress already addressed this (quite well) but I have to reiterate that pit bulls were NOT bred to be aggressive towards humans. They were bred to be completely under human control as they fought other animals. Aggression toward other animals does not = aggression towards humans.

I'm all for dangerous dog legislation that does not name breeds. That means the owner of any dog that has proven itself to be a menace - through bite history or other tangible actions - could be subject to losing their dog (euthanization or surrender), fines and penalties.

If pit bull-type dogs had been developed to attack and kill people then the argument that they have a natural inclination to hurt people would be logical. HOWEVER they were not created to be aggressive with people. In fact it was the opppsite.

The goal when developing these fighting breeds was to create dogs that were aggressive with other dogs and absolutely gentle with people. This way a human could handle the dogs and even pull them away from a fight. Having dogs that adored people was absolutely necessary when creating a dog meant to fight other dogs for sport.

 
That is very true and you know exactly what happened to any dog that showed aggression towards humans.  They were killed right there on the spot and their offspring were watched very closely.  The problem is that that type of bucketing isn't happening.  In fact aggression towards people is encouraged by some people who want a tough dog and these dogs are in the hands of people that don't care.  Somehow the people that have and love bully breeds are going to have to step forward and find a solution to what is happening to the breeds that they love.  Dobe breeders stepped forward when their breed was inder fire in the 70's and changed the going forward temperment in fact to the point that some dobe owners now say that their dogs are wusses.
 
You can't just keep saying no, no, no.  You have to be proactive and change the culture that surrounds the breeds now or else those breeds are doomed.
 
 

I know this has already been touched on, but bans based on breed just DO NOT WORK! 
 
The kind of people who own PBs for the wrong reasons, who breed them for the wrong reasons and train them the wrong way or not at all, they simply pick another breed to "look tough with" and do THAT breed a lot of damage... until TAHT breed is banned and then they pick ANOTHER....
 
Meanwhile plenty of irresponsible people, criminals and the like, continue to own and even breed PBs DESPITE the law, while caring and loving families have their beloved pet taken away and PTS.... 
 
The thing is, criminals don't obey the law.  It's pretty much the job specification for a criminal.  Thus only unsavoury types own the breed, so it continues to exist "underground" and rather than becoming extinct it simply goes completely down the pan and in all likelihood becomes truly dangerous because good, ethical breeders can no longer breed carefully for sound temperamnet and human friendliness!!!!!
 
Whether you like PBs or not, if you think about it logically you have to concede that breed bans just don't work, end of.

I was watching National Geographic's The Dog Whisperer the other day.  I hit the "info" button to see what the show was going to be about..

"a pit bull who is aggressive toward dogs but not humans"

Gasp!  A pit bull who is aggressive toward dogs but not humans.  Can you even imagine such a creature!?

Ya can't get anymore uniformed than that.

I think the rhetoric on both sides of this debate tend to be overblown. I certainly don't buy the arguement that all PBs are inherently vicious any more than I believe all vicious PBs are the result of bad owners. The facts are that the majority of PBs will never bite anyone, however they do have a greater biting power than most dogs and therfore naturally poise a greater risk to the public. Debating whether the fault lies with the breed or the owner is IMO beside the point. What matters is the end result, whether it be injury or fatality. The real question is how do we prevent people who will not train or treat their dogs properly, from owning such a dog?

I'm not going to jump very far into this thread, since so many people have already made WONDERFUL posts on the issue, but I'd just like to bring up the issue of FAMILY in all of this.

As in, the FAMILIES that are destroyed by BSL. It has been posted by other members that breed bans do not work. There will always be thugs out there who don't give a crap if their dogs get loose and maul the neighbor's kid. THOSE people will not be affected by breed bans, since they're not planning on following the law in the first place. Instead, breed bans just work to eliminate family pets- since the only people who would actually follow the law and NOT own a banned breed, are the responsible owners who SHOULD be owning that breed.

So, it goes something like this: Family A. has a pit bull. He is licensed, neutered, UTD on shots, has a CGC, and is the sweetest, most trustworthy family dog ever created. His family loves him and treats him like any other member of the family- to the children in the family, he is like a brother.

Family B also owns a pit bull. This dog has never seen a vet, and is therefore not licensed. He sits on a short, heavy chain in the yard, is rarely fed, and slowly goes mad from lonliness, hunger, frustration, and exposure. Soon he starts snapping at people who get close enough. His "family" never thinks to bring him inside, or give him a reassuring pat- he is rarely even fed.

BSL is passed in the area. City records are seized, and they see that Family A has a licensed pit bull at their residence. They come knocking, and tear this loving, sweet dog from the arms of sobbing children. They say that he will be "humanely euthanized"- killed, in a cold, strange, sterile environment with no one he loves, his body sent to the landfill to rot- while his family sits at home, the children mourning their furry sibling, the adults mourning their furry child. The children of the family have now had their first brush with the cold cruelty of the world. The adults just try to forget that it happened.

Family B on the other hand, is not affected. Their dog was't registered, so a record of him does not exist. They go about their merry way, ignoring their dog, until the fateful day when he finally breaks the chain in his backyard. Finally free, but still hungry and mad, he jumps a fence and goes after a dog playing with a child in a nearby yard. The child gets in the way, the child is killed. The dog is picked up and euthanized.

This is the scenario that generally unfolds when BSL is enacted- so by all means- explain to me HOW BSL is successful, or in any way a good idea? Is destroying thousands of loving families worth it? What if tomorrow they ban Irish Setters? You'll be singing a different tune when it's YOUR door they're knocking on, and YOUR dog they're dragging away to kill for having a certain body shape.


You say you care about all dogs- all dogs except pit bulls, right? I adopted my first rescued pit bull, Culley, last Friday. I have waited YEARS for this dog, and I doubt I will ever have any other breed again. I got a dog of this breed knowing full well that I would be in for a fight- not with the dog, but from ignorant people who would like to see him dead. No, they're NOT dogs for everyone- but neither are labs, or poodles, or GSD's, or any other breed. EVERY breed has certain traits that make it right for some people and not for others. Just because some people have no business owning a certain breed, doesn't mean that NO ONE has business owning that breed. Pit bulls are far from being the only breed prone to dog agression- and if we're going to ban every breed that is, we're going to have quite a list on our hands.

OP, you may feel that you're safe from BSL and so have no problem promoting it. Understand that NO ONE is safe from discrimination based on appearance, ever. As soon as one witch hunt is over, another will begin. Pit Bulls today, Poodles tomorrow.

Look at my signature. All but one of my dogs could be potentially targetted by BSL- 1 pit mix, an Akita, 1 pit, 1 chow mix, and 1 bulldog mix. If a comprehensive breed ban passed in my area, my children- that is what they are to me- could potentially be taken away and killed. Dead, gone, forever. Let that sink in- thousands of families ripped apart, destroyed, in the name of "Public Safety." All of the responsibly owned pit bulls on this forum and elsewhere- Culley, Ella, Tyson, Tek, Rosie, Sally, Dipstick, Brownie, and all the others- dead and gone forever.  

If that's your cup of tea, then by all means, promote BSL. But before making that decision, please think carefully about the consequences of a breed ban- think for a moment of the families your vote would have helped destroy.

Dear all who replied,
 
First off, thanks! No - I'm not being sarcastic. I really did want to hear honest opinions so thank you. [] I am actually in a bit of a hurry right now so I cannot take time to personally reply to everything but I can see the reasoning behind the replies. If pits are banned, then for one reason or another so will others. That makes sense. But, the issue is are pit bulls in general safe for society? I mean I'm sure everyone who has a pit on here, when walking their dog, isn't presenting a danger to society but pit bulls as a breed do attack with more fatalities than other breeds, unless I'm somehow mistaken (and if I am, feel free to point me in the right direction).
 
Also, there is obviously a distinct difference in banning pools than banning PBs. You can choose whether or not you allow your child or yourself near a swimming pool. I cannot choose if I'm walking down the street and a pit bull attacks me or my dog. If I were walking down the street with my dogs and someone with a pit walked by us, I would get a better grasp on my dogs leashes and be suspicious. I cannot trust them and I trust them less than other breeds we come across. Does this mean I don't like pits? No. I don't like what they do, and what they have a history of doing.
 
I know the reputation pits have is not their fault, it's what they were originally bred to do - attack dogs. (And BTW, pits do attack dogs because of an urging, and it seems entirely possible that this urging can arise with humans.) Also, because of their original purpose, they are obviously very stocky, muscular, have a high pain threshold, have incredibly strong jaws, and have a strong will complete tasks - all things which make pits unsafe for society.
 
And, if a pit does attack, sometimes it is not the owners fault - legally it is, of course but you cannot always blame the owner. Pits will do what they were bred to, and that is to attack - it is engrained into them. That is why they are unsafe for society. All pit bulls have the element of unpredictability (not that they all will act on this or display it). Notice how I said in my original post, "I'm just seeing the PB ban as a logical method (right now at least) of decreasing the number of fatal and severely damaging attacks brought on by pit bulls. ". The PB ban is a logical method of decreasing the number of fatal attacks brought on by pit bulls.
I don't know what to do about other breeds that would take their place, but right now the pits bulls are the top aggressors and the issue needs to be dealt with before more people or dogs die or are hurt.
 
Yes, BTW I do love all dogs, but I don't love what pits, as a breed, have a tendency to do.

ORIGINAL: timsdat

If pit bull-type dogs had been developed to attack and kill people then the argument that they have a natural inclination to hurt people would be logical. HOWEVER they were not created to be aggressive with people. In fact it was the opppsite.

The goal when developing these fighting breeds was to create dogs that were aggressive with other dogs and absolutely gentle with people. This way a human could handle the dogs and even pull them away from a fight. Having dogs that adored people was absolutely necessary when creating a dog meant to fight other dogs for sport.

That is very true and you know exactly what happened to any dog that showed aggression towards humans.  They were killed right there on the spot and their offspring were watched very closely.  The problem is that that type of bucketing isn't happening.  In fact aggression towards people is encouraged by some people who want a tough dog and these dogs are in the hands of people that don't care.  Somehow the people that have and love bully breeds are going to have to step forward and find a solution to what is happening to the breeds that they love.  Dobe breeders stepped forward when their breed was inder fire in the 70's and changed the going forward temperment in fact to the point that some dobe owners now say that their dogs are wusses.

You can't just keep saying no, no, no.  You have to be proactive and change the culture that surrounds the breeds now or else those breeds are doomed.

Where I live, many attacks come from the situation where a person is walking their dog, and their dog is attacked by a Pit Bull. Then the person trying to protect their own dog, is subsequently attacked. The other issue, is that people that seem to be attracted to PB's are the drug-pusher gang member types. The combination of a PB with one of those people on the end of the leash is really frightening. When I am walking my dog, and I see one of these obviously untrained, out of control, PB's approaching, I feel threatened. I would have to be crazy to feel otherwise. For this reason, I carry a can of Bear Type Pepper spray whenever I am walking my dog.  I pity the poor dog that tries to attack us...  https://store.udap.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=P&roduct_Code=3P&Category_Code=PS

The thing that worries me post about Pit Bull is the people that tend to want them as well-- people who want to have fighting dogs.  I know it's a stereotype but I do see it a good bit in the city (a city where we have a ban...clearly a sign of its effectiveness!).  I think a family up the street from me has one but I almost never see him so it's not clear to me if the kids' have a cousin or friend that brings him over or if he actually lives there and they just never let him out.  Either way, it's not a well trained dog at all.  The few times I have seen him outside he seems happy and wags his tail a lot but lunges and jumps and anyone that walks by.  I choose to keep my distance since the kids clearly do not have much control of him.

Great posts guys.

Original: IrishSetterGrl
But, the issue is are pit bulls in general safe for society? I mean I'm sure everyone who has a pit on here, when walking their dog, isn't presenting a danger to society but pit bulls as a breed do attack with more fatalities than other breeds, unless I'm somehow mistaken (and if I am, feel free to point me in the right direction).

I'm not sure that you looked at the link that SillySally provided you with, but please do check it out.http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html Many of the media stories that represent "pit bull" attacks are dogs that are identified under the general umbrella of "pit bull". Many dogs are misidentified as "pit bulls" when in reality, they are not APBTs or Amstaffs at all. They could potentially be any of the 25 breeds listed there, many of which are "guardian breeds", or bred with the intent to protect their owners against other people, in which human directed aggression under the right circumstances is a breed trait. Furthermore, many people are intentionally breeding pit mixes to get bigger, stronger dogs. Throwing another breed(s) into the mix puts traits that are not inherently APBT qualities into the mix, thus complicating things even more . (Target IRRESPONSIBLE OWNER/BREEDERS.) The fact that dogs are generalized, categorized, and discriminated against based on looks is incredibly dangerous.

Allowing breed specific legislation is essentially allowing the law to state that race predicts behavior. Racial profiling is wrong.

Original: IrishSetterGrl
While I realize that not all pit bulls are viscious attackers, the breed was originally bred for that purpose and all of them *have the potential* (and I mean *potential*, everyone) to kill someone easily, despite whether they have shown aggression before or not.

I know that others have addressed this, but you are incredibly misinformed. Pit bulls were not bred for human aggression. In fact, as has been pointed out here, any dog that showed human aggression was culled. This trait was bred out of the dog. In today's society neglect, poor socialization, and mistreatment breeds aggression of any kind. For this reason, it is imperative that the law be directed at irresponsible owners, not those of us who have wonderful, well trained, perfectly social and friendly family dogs.

Original: IrishSetterGrl
In fact, don't most pits attack without a buildup of aggression or without a history of it?

A dog will not attack without warning. Most likely the dog would have been exhibiting signs of instability that the owner either ignored, or was not educated enough to catch.

Original: IrishSetterGrl
I'm just seeing the PB ban as a logical method

IMO, there is no logic in the outright breed of a race. This is a poorly thought out, "easy" solution to a much bigger societal problem. This is not about dogs, or about logic.

Original: IrishSetterGrl
I think more people would get dogs for the right reasons instead of getting one for a bully face.

I love my dog for its "bully face". And not because I'm a thug. I'm a public elementary school teachers who finds "bully faces" to be quite attractive.

Original: SillySally

--"I love all kinds of dogs"

Really? Legislating them out of existance is an interesting way of showing it. Sorry, but I take this subject VERY personally, because it directly effects my family. Sally, Ellie, Tek, Rosie, Tyson, Dipstick, Brownie, and all the other bully breeds are, most assuredly dogs. However, I don't see much love or concern for them or their futures in your post at all.

Well Said!

Ratsicles, You couldn't be more right.

Families are/will be torn apart because of BSL. What is needed is stricter enforcement of laws currently in place, and new laws that target irresponsible owners of any breed.

ETA: Nay.

A year or two ago, there were three, THREE fatalities attributed to Pitties.  Compare this with cars (hundred of thousands), swimming pools, amusement park rides, ATVs, horses and a plethora of other potentially fatal things/animals.

I have owned bull breeds since 1982, I am hardly the stereotypical Pittie owner; my DH and I are college-educated professionals who send our kids to public schools and pay our taxes. I work in a library and my DH is an automotive technician. My bitch is duly licensed, UTD on her shots and is so well behaved that she received her CGC at eleven MONTHS. She has a stack of ribbons from the show ring an inch thick.  Aggressive dogs are excused from the show ring.  Obviously, she is NOT a problem.  If she were, those ribbons wouldn't be in my drawer. She also is used in my dog safety classes. She has been around literally HUNDREDS of elementary children over the years.  The only damage she has done has been from her thorough tongue washings and beating kids with her tail.

I have volunteered for years at our local animal shelter.  I have never had a Pittie so much as lift a lip at me.  Yes, it will happen at one time or another, but the chances of being bitten by a bull breed are very small.  I have been bitten by a Doberman, two GSDs and a Border collie.  My last bite (two days ago) was from a CAT. Cat bites are waaaay more likely to be septic--should we ban all cats?  FWIW, the cat bite hurt worse than the dog bites! I have had Lab mixes try to bite me on more than one occasion. 

I will always own a bull breed. They are the perfect type of dog for me. I, too, go a lot of places on my own and having a crime deterant along is always good. Gypsy HAS protected me before and she would do it again.  We can walk in perfect safety here in town at night and do so regularly.

I like bull breeds because of their tenacity, their intelligence and their independant thinking.  I do NOT want slavish devotion that is so often found in Labs, Goldens, many of the setters and even some Border collies.  That is fine for many foks; some actually prefer it. I need a dog who can think out problems and solve them quickly.  The bull breeds do this very, very well.

I notice that your avitar is an Irish setter. You do realize don't you, that if this ban goes into effect that evntually all large dogs may very well be banned? Do you think that all Irish setters should be banned as well as Borzois, Deerhounds, St. Bernards, etc.?

FWIW, the AC officer knows us personally--because of my volunteer work.  She has never had a problem with Gypsy and Gypsy LOVES Darleen!