The Pit Bull Ban: Yay or Nay

I could go on and on about this, but I will just say that what people do not realize is the media tells all of the bad stories. "pit bull attacks" sells their papers and gets everyone worked up. Yet, I never hear of other breeds attacking hear locally even though I know for a fact that they happen. (know a couple serious bites that happened lately)
 
ALL DOGS BITE.
 
The media makes their $ on playing on your emotions. If you went by what the media said, you shouldnt even go outside of your house because according to the media everything is dangerous.
 
If you think pit bulls are bad I truly encourage you to start volunteering at a shelter.
 
The solution is to punish the owner not the dog (no matter what breed)
 
"Dont believe everything that you read"
 
Yes some bad people own pits but if you stop to think about how many pits there are in this country and how many actually bite someone you will find your answer.
 
Mine is Nay on banning any breed of dog
 
 

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.

 
I would like to point out to you that many of the breed traits listed in that last sentence are not exclusive to Pitts and are in fact almost universal throughout the Terrier Group. 
 
I do see what you are saying.  I think you have probably taken on board that Pitts are not inherently dangerous to humans and that it is DOGS they were bred to be aggressive towards in the past (again many terriers have a degree of dog aggression WITHOUT people breeding selectively for it!) - NOT humans.  While I'm at it I should like to point out that there is no link between dog agression and animal aggression.  There just isn't. 
 
Anyway.  I think that your concern is the damage that they are capable of should they choose to attack.  The same attack by a Yorkie for instance is very unlikely to end in a fatality.  It's not the nature of the breed that concerns you but the potential they have because of their sheer power... Is that it???
 
If so then I appreciate your concern - but again, there are several breeds physically capable of such damage.  Lots of large breeds and nearly all the bullies would fall under this category.  Again, the ban wouldnt work but would push those breeds underground and do them a shed load of damage.  Bye bye to a lot of wonderful breeds.  Hello to a lot more poorly bred physically powerful dogs (as if we didnt have enough alkready!)
 
Unfortunately the people who think up these laws and bans are not usually dog-savvy people.  They do not see the flaw in creating a ban based on how a dog LOOKS.  Sheesh, a dacschund scores about 87% +ve "pit-type" or something rubbish!
 
At first glance the ban does seem the most logical answer.  But it is a quick-fix that does not target the root of the problem and offers kind-of instant gratification..... a great many pits would be culled so you might think, hey, think of all those bites that wont happen!  But the truth is, they probably wouldnt have happened ANYWAY.  The dangerous dogs are likely still out there, having escaped the net of a badly thought out law.... I'm rambling again.  Sorry.

Also, I take all these "pit bulls are involved in the majority of dog attack deaths" with a grain of salt until I can see some solid figured adjusted based on breed popularity.  I've seen some stats, but they were only relative to breed registration.  I would describe pit bulls (and I used the term pit bulls more in the sense of the variety - pit bull terriers, am staffs, staffy bulls, canary dogs, cane corsos, dogo argentinos), at least in my locale, as extremely popular.  However, I'd wager less than 5% of them are registered with the AKC because like I said, they're mixes that fall into the category of the pit bull variety (not exactly the American Pit Bull Terrier).  It's not unlikely that at any given time, half of our shelter dogs are pit varieties or mixes that are predominantly pit.  I see pits everywhere I go, and it seems that there's a pretty sizable group of people just on this forum that own one or several pits.  Therefore, it's not really surprising that just given their sheer numbers and popularity, the majority of fatal dog attacks involve pits.  That's like saying the majority of deaths caused by transportation are car accidents - um, duh!  Do we ban cars?  No!  We teach people how to use them and set rules and consquenses for misuse, just like there are consequences for owning fighting dogs, letting them roam free, mistreating dogs, etc.  If animal control spent more time enforcing the rules we already had and the public in general spent just 20 minutes educating themselves on this breed and basic dog ownership, it wouldn't be a big deal. 

I am at work and do not have a huge amount of time, but it is plainly obvious that you know very little about the breed.  Again, I beg you to PLEASE educate yourself.  This is a fantasic web site [linkhttp://www.workingpitbull.com/]http://www.workingpitbull.com/[/link]

There is no link between dog aggression and human aggression.  Dogs are not stupid.  They know the difference between dogs and people.

"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."

[sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif]  When he is an adult, my lab will be stocky, larger then my pit, quite musclar (he is recovering from surgery but my dogs are active), is much more determined in many tasks then my pit, and has attached himself to a throw rug and hung on with all four feet off the ground when I tried to lift it out of his reach--something that my pit has never done.  I guess he is a danger to society. 
 
ETA--the lab has a VERY high pain threshold as well, just ask my vet.....

Almost all of you have said anything and everything I could have said.

It's funny, I just got done doing the flirt pole with Ella. My son was on the couch and I swung the flirt pole in that direction. Normally, she would have thrown herself onto the couch without a care if me or my fiancee were sitting on it. But she stopped dead in her tracks as soon as she saw my son on there.

I love my dog.
And it hurts to read that people think that taking her away from me would be the solution to some problem.

And I got a question: What's the problem again? I guess...I guess, I forgot what exactly the problem is.




Yes. My dog has a high prey-drive. So do most terrier dogs and even GSDs. Yes, my dog is a little dog aggressive. I manage that. The key isn't to ban, but to educate.

If they ban my dog, that may take care of whatever problem is in your head that's been placed there, but if they ban my dog, what are you going to do when they eventually ban YOUR dog?

Nay.  The points others made were sound.  This type of legislation really disappoints me. 

Alright...I really do not have the time right now to respond to everything but I have read and considered all of it and will respond tomorrow as I need to clear my mind and sleep.

A statistic I found online: "Attacks by pit bulls accounted for about a third of the 238 fatal dog attacks in the United States during a 20-year study, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." [linkhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/23/MNGRODDH561.DTL]source[/link]

And a second one..."In searching the internet and emailing people who might know, I have received information that Pit Bulls represent 5% to 9.6% of the total US canine population of roughly 55-60 million dogs." [linkhttp://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/06/04/more_pit_bull_stats/]source[/link]

So, according to these statistics, pits account for only 5-9.6% of the total dog population in the U.S. but are responsible for a third of fatal dog attacks (at least during the time the study was conducted, but I don't see any factors which would drastically change the reality of the results in present day). it bulls make up a small dog population in the big picture, yet a lot of fatal attacks. Dangerous to society? I think yes.

Also, I see what many of you are saying by everyone incorrectly identifying dogs as pit bulls. Maybe before a dog is seized and/or euthanized/whatever would be done under a ban, then a dog breed specialist can decide if it truly is a 'pit bull'? At least thats better than an uneducated guess by an AC officer or something.

I will view the sites that were posted in the morning because I will be able to focus a lot easier then...I am tired.

I am absolutely amazed that despite the posts made by owners of bully breeds in this thread, you would still advocate their dogs being taken away and KILLED for what they are. I am just amazed....and saddened. I would never wish death on an innocent just because I was afraid of the slight POSSIBILITY of it doing something wrong in the future. That isn't the way our society is run- we don't punish entire classes of people (at least we shouldn't) for the crimes of a few, and the same should be said for dogs. Replace "Pit bull" with any random human race- and see if your statements still sound good to you.
 
 
I know that Culley, even though he was abused in the past, would LOVE to give you big sloppy wet kisses- he doesn't care if you're afraid of him. He loves all people equally.
 
 

Well, your source doesn't cite a source so I'm still skeptical.

In searching the internet and emailing people who might know, I have received information that Pit Bulls represent 5% to 9.6% of the total US canine population of roughly 55-60 million dogs.The lower percentage of 5% translates to roughly 2 1/2 million Pit Bulls in the US. Other dog breeds involved in fatal dog attacks have dramatically smaller populations.

Even if that's correct, 5-9.6%....that's a pretty big margin of error!  Plus, they're just deciding to take the lower number?

I can find equally not-so-credible sources that argue in favor of pits:

Did you know that the National Canine Temperament Testing Association tested 122 breeds, and Pit Bulls placed the 4th highest with a 95% passing rate?................

When Pit Bulls enjoyed being the nation's most popular dog during the W.W.I era, there were no problems with vicious Pit Bull attacks. Pit Bulls were not banned anywhere.

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/petaletter.html


NYC most popular breeds in 2005:
1. Mixed
2. Lab
3. Pit Bull
4. Shi Tzu
5. GSD
6. Yorkie

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2006/pr122-06.shtml

There are over 4.5 million dog bites each year. This is an estimate as there is no central reporting agency for dog bites, thus breed and other information is not captured. Out of the millions of bites, about 10-20 are fatal each year. While certainly tragic, it represents a very small number statistically and should not be considered as a basis for sweeping legislative action.

It is imperative that the dog population in the community be understood. To simply pull numbers of attacks does not give an accurate representation of a breed necessarily. For example, by reviewing a study that states there have been five attacks by golden retrievers in a community and 10 attacks by pit bulls in that same community it would appear that pit bulls are more dangerous. However, if you look at the dog populations in that community and learn that there are 50 golden retrievers present and 500 pit bulls, then the pit bulls are actually the safer breed statistically.

http://www.workingpitbull.com/BSL.html

I fully agree with all the above posts defending Pits.  I absolutely adore the breed and more and more want to have my next dog be a Pit or Pit type.

Just wanted to throw this in there: 



I visited an animal shelter once.  There were plenty of gorgeous dogs including a Husky cowering in the corner that looked like it might snap defensively it was so scared.  There were plenty of dogs barking and being brats.  The one dog I remember the most is a brindle Pit who did all he could to melt through the bars of his cage to get into my arms and lick my face.  I had the absolute hardest time leaving that place without that dog.

I visited a friend once.  She went downstairs to do homework, I sat upstairs to watch TV.  Within a few minutes her white Pit, Amy, had not so stealthily maneuvered her way onto my lap and proceeded to slobber all over my face for a while until she settled down to watch tv with me.

My grandma does not like dogs at all.  Except one - her friend's pit bull.  Do you know how funny it is to see a bunch of old ladies going goo goo ga ga over the country's most hated breed?  That dog is extremely dog aggressive, but the old ladies handle it just fine.  That dog would never EVER hurt a human.

At an outdoors event a few weeks back I spent my time observing the few dogs present.  There was a Puggle, trotting about tugging on its leash, barking at things.  There was a Lab/Rot mix barking at the other dogs.  There were a few other dogs but the ONLY two well behaved dogs were the two Pits who spent the day gazing adoringly up at their owners, never tugging on their leashes, never looking at the other dogs, being just plain perfect.  Ironic, no?

I've been the victim of a nasty dog bite to the face that required an emergency room visit and 36 stitches to fix.  By a pit?  No, by my own Retriever mix.  To be honest I have never witnessed a pit show agression towards humans at all.  I know it happens, but I've never seen it.

I am totally against banning Pit Bulls.  Not only because I own two of them but because I used to feel the same way that most people feel about them.  I was scared of them.  I, however, educated myself on the breed and decided to open my heart to one.  It was the best choice I have ever made regaurding a dog.  These dogs are not bad.  My vet even told me that he was more likely to be bit by a Chi than a Pit.  Pits were not originally bred to be aggressive toward people or dogs for that matter.  They were bred and used for hunting big game such as wild boar and bears.  They had the strength and will power to take down these animlas.  Fast-foward a few years and some idiot saw the strength and force of these dogs and decided to put them in the ring to fight.  That's how the fighting came about.  I have my two pits and they are the best dogs.  TGhey are great with everyone they meet and they even get along great with other dogs.  Pits have the potential to do damage to people, so do Rotties but you don't see people trying to ban them.  I thought America was supposed to be the land of freedom and opportunity.  If that is the case, why should the government have the right to step in and say, "You can't own a Pit Bull."  That's like trying to tell someone that they are not allowed to have a child.  It's not right.  So, yes, some Pits have attacked people.  The dog wasn't born to think that people should be attacked.  Someone MADE that dog that way.    Whatever happened to that saying, "Don't judge a book by it's cover"?  The same should go for dogs.  You can't judge an ENTIRE breed by something that a few have done.

"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."

Kind of like how you can choose whether or not to allow your kid on MySpace right[]-LMAO.  In addition, I seem to remember having to take a semester of swimming in HS, but oddly enough, never took a semester of "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."

OK, so we ban pits.  Well, rots are next on the list then aren't they.  OK, then we must ban rots--and so on and so forth.  And the issue the needs to be dealt with?   The people behind the problem.  You can ban until your heart's content, but if you fail to deal with the people who are acting irresponsibly, then you have failed, hands down.  It's that simple.  If someone has a dog who attacks, throw the book at them.  If someone is involved in dog fighting in ANY way, throw the book at them.  If someone has loose dogs, throw the book at them.  If someone chains their dogs, throw the book at them.  In many cases if community laws were properly enforced in the first place, you would not have this issue.  I would be thrilled beyond measure if my community fined people that allowed their dogs to run free hundreds of dollars for even the first infraction.  I support proposals that make it a felony if your dog kills someone.  It is time that the HUMANS, you know, the ones that are supposed to have the higher reasoning skills, actually take control and force the irresponsible among us to become accountable.


"And a second one..."In searching the internet and emailing people who might know, I have received information that Pit Bulls represent 5% to 9.6% of the total US canine population of roughly 55-60 million dogs." [linkhttp://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/06/04/more_pit_bull_stats/]source"[/link]

Riiiiiight.  And what breeds are being called "pit bulls" here?  There is no such thing as a "pit bull."  There are American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, unregistered pit bulls, and various mixes that may or may not have pit bull blood in them.  The truth is that unless this person contacted the AKC, the UKC, the ADBA, every town that had licensing records, every shelter in every town, and then went door to door to count all the dogs that are not licensed then they have absolutely no clue how many "pit bulls" there are in the US.  Sorry, but emailing (not even sure what that means--did they do a mass "if you have a pit bull" email or what) is simply not going to do it.



I noticed that you cited the CDC stats, but I found this quote on their web site:

"Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 12 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific policies exist and hold promise for preventing dog bites. For prevention ideas and model policies for control of dangerous dogs, please see the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions: [linkhttp://www.avma.org/pubhlth/dogbite/] A community approach to dog bite prevention[/link]."

Interesting.  It sounds to me as though they are indicating that their *own* stats are not accurate.  And if the CDC does not trust its own dog bite stats, I can't imagine why you would want us to trust them.


I cannot entirely blame you.  It is human nature to fear what you do not understand.  However, what I do blame is what seems to be a complete unwillingness to actually research and understand the dog that you are so quick to send to death.  Frankly, it frightens me.

Nay! (BTW, great posts, everyone.)

I used to think Pit Bulls were naturally aggressive too. Plain and simple, I was wrong. Try and ask a local APBT breed club, or contact the a urebred registry that recognizes Pit Bulls (APBTs or Am Staffs) and ask about the breed standard when it comes to their temperament. I've also heard a lot more stories about Retriever bites/attacks -- remember the woman who got the first face transplant? That was a result of being mauled by her own pet Lab. Funny that many media reports never mentioned the dog's breed... wonder if it would've been the same if the dog were a Pit Bull? [8|] And even if they did ban Pit Bulls (or if the breed never existed in the first place), it doesn't necessarily follow that the volume of dog attacks would decrease. Or that there won't be any "monster dogs" anymore.

Some interesting articles:
[linkhttp://www.geocities.com/genealogypublishing/DogBites.htm]Dog Bite Statistics: Bad Logic[/link]
[linkhttp://www.edba.org.au/media.html]"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story"[/link]
[linkhttp://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/articles/wolff.html]Bad Reputation[/link]
[linkhttp://www.workingpitbull.com/aboutpits.htm]About Pit Bulls[/link]
[linkhttp://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/FatalDog/FatalDog.pdf]Fatal Dog Attacks[/link]
[linkhttp://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/MistakenIdentity/WrongId.htm]Mistaken Identity[/link]
[linkhttp://www.goodpooch.com/BSL/slantedmedia.htm]Slanted Media[/link]

Some videos to watch:
[linkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUH3sKVuPFw]Pit Bull video 1[/link]
[linkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlvIa70rou8]Pit Bull video 2[/link]
[linkhttp://gprime.net/flash.php/thepitbullproblem]The Pit Bull Problem[/link]

Does anyone have a list of all the breeds currently banned/affected by BSL?

ORIGINAL: IrishSetterGrl
But, the issue is are pit bulls in general safe for society?

 

The PB ban is a logical method of decreasing the number of fatal attacks brought on by pit bulls.

 Yes, you are 100 percent correct, if there were no pit bulls there would be no pit bull bites. And if there were no red cars then the number of red cars that get speeding tickets would be zero. The question is not whether eliminating a breed would end problems with the breed---that is pretty obvious. No breed=no bites from that breed. The question is whether we as a society can determine if specific breed is so incredibly, overwhelmingly dangerous in and of itself  that the dogs pose enough of a threat to society to justify wiping them out.  Just as if we as a society determined that red cars---because they are red---speed more than other cars (and create more traffic accidents) and therefore pose an unacceptable risk. This brings us to the major flaws in BSL aimed at pits: 1. As has been stated, correct identification of APBTs is crucial to determining the threat level. Since they cannot be correctly identified there is no way to be certain if the threat is proportionate to the threat level posed by other dogs. (Thanks Sillysally for a ref.) Even if we could 100% identify the breed of every dog that bit someone, we still do not have an accurate population count for APBTs and pit mixes. 
Here's my bite statistic/threat assessment for the day: 100% of wirehaired dachshunds bite children.Source: I have only known one wirehaired dachshund in my life and it bit me when I was a child. Therefore 100% of the wirehaired dachshunds I know about are child-biters.  Instead of using percentages as a reason to ban a breed, perhaps you could say that because of the size, strength and tenacity of the breed they are naturally more of a threat to human life than a chi. I won't argue with that, but I'll address it in a minute. Fatal flaw 2: Misidentification of causality, that is to say "does a red car go faster, or are people who like to drive fast drawn to red cars?" While we know that not everyone who owns a red car speeds, it may be true that eople who enjoy speeding are drawn disproportionately to red cars.  Which leads us to what happens when there are no red cars---speeders will pick another color. Ditto for dog breeds.  Aha, you say, but if they choose another breed they may choose one that is less likely to inflict a fatal bite----and lessening dog-related fatalities is our goal. For the speeders (not the law abiding folks Ratsicles[]) there is a big leap from pit to chi and people who want a tough-looking dog for its look/reputation would find another compact muscular dog with equally strong jaws. So if the true objective of a BSL is to lessen dog-related fatalities then it should address all dogs which are capable of inflicting fatal bites.  The standard would need to reflect something like "all dogs who weigh more than XX pounds or are over XX inches tall with a jaw strength of XX pounds per square inch should require special licenses." If one wanted to limit the number of dogs who pose a threat to human life, then that would be a logical way to do it. It would also mean that your dog and mine would probably be breeds that needed a special license. Do I think this would eliminate dog bites? No. Would it cut down on fatal dog bites? Perhaps if owner education (including puppy socialization/training) were part of the licensing process. It wouldn't stop bad guys who mistreat their dogs but I believe it would increase the number of dogs owned by the general public who have good bite inhibition and that would prevent some bites. It has been suggested that people are now breeding pits to BE human-aggressive contrary to their original purpose. I won't argue that this isn't happening, but I will suggest that beating and starving a dog is a faster way to make a dog human-aggressive than trying to overcome generations of breeding. While creating human-aggressive dogs can be done by selectively breeding bad-tempered dogs, eliminating the pit will only lead these numbskulls to choose another breed.  And of course if one breeds a large, muscular, dangerously unstable human-aggressive dog one may find himself  the unintended beneficiary of the new breed's special gifts.[sm=devil.gif] Let's think big picture and long term here: In the history of the United States, has there ever been a species of animal that has been declared so dangerous that the government has tried to wipe it out? I can't think of one--but I can think of a few predators which were hunted to near extinction to protect humans and livestock. Our government is now protecting the animals which used to be on their hit list and trying to increase their numbers---because of the unintended negative consequences of wiping the predators out. What are the unintended consequences of BSL and eliminating pits? I don't know---and neither does anyone else. eace.

There is absolutely no reason for breed bans.... It goes with the old proverb about trains.  Take off the caboose, there will still be a last car.  Take pits or any other breed out of the mix and a new "bad" dog will emerge.

The key is enforcement of existing law:  Licensing, leash laws and dangerous dog laws.  Now I know this is a disheartening statement, but more euthansia (potentially of dogs that may be salvagable) would be an outcome.  However, that to me is preferable to breed bans.

I currently own dogs that could easily end up on the banned list and already are on many insurance company lists.