Ten Years of Hell

Yes. The point being that these breeds were the ones with the massive majority in the incident to breed population ratio. Therefore although other breeds may become dangerous these were the ones that were causing a significant problem.

my20cents

The point you have missed is that pit bulls are dangerous if not kept by responsible owners; the trend in the country at the time was for these dogs to be owned by such owners. They were the breed used most often in dog fighting etc. They require a responsible owner.

  I have to disagree. GSD's are guilty of a lot of bites and therefore should fall under the same criteria. Any working breed, hunting breed, or even any terrier breed could be considered dangerous and fall under this criteria. I can think of a slew of breeds that require a responsible owner and should not always be owned by just anyone. Even border collies! I remember years ago when the Border collie was all the rage for obedience and many people were running out and getting border collies and it was not working out very well because this was a very alert, working breed that needed to work, they were not for everyone.  I still strongly believe that the responsibility has to be placed on the owner, not the dog.. The answer to the problem should never be a ban of the breed. Ban the pit bulls and then the next problem dog everyone has will be a Dogo, ban the Dogo and then everyone will get a Rott and the problem dog will be Rott’s ban the Rott and then everyone will get a GSD and it goes on and on until you are left with nothing but a Chihuahua to own and then everyone will at last realize that pound for pound they are far more viscous than your average PB.   It is also interesting that when you google "UK Dog Bites Breed" you find that " the spaniel" is the one most guilty and therefore based off of your arguments Spaniels should be banned.http://www.stopdogattacks.com/dogbitestatistics/ukdogbitestats/Also "NHS statistics show the number attending A&E after a dog attack has risen by more than 40% in the last four years to nearly 3,800 a year."    Seems the ban is not working very well, most likely because they forgot those pesky spaniels.

 

you neglect to consider the severity of the bite and the potential of damage a dog can do. You also neglect to think that there are many people who are not 'dog savvy' and do not react correctly when challenged by a dog. Now breeds such as boarder collies have far less powerfull jaws than for example a pitbull. They are also much more likley to bite once and retreat, they are much more likely to be intimidated off an attack.  Your senario of a roll on effect where the ban passes from one breed to the next has not happened, and does not seem even remotely likely to happen. Blaming only the owners has three large flaws, firstly it is incredibly expensive, and secondly someone or some animal has to be unfairly bitten before a prosecution can take place. Now the situation used to often be with these breeds not a bite but a mauling. People were severley injured. The third problem is that for every owner prosecuted there are each time more iresponsible owners buying such dogs and the problem persists. Now statistics from the NHS showing an increase, that would be normal to some extent as dog populations have also grown as have the numbers of dogs left to stray etc. What the statistics dont show is the vast majority of these bites being a case of having little more than a tetanus and a few stitches, not the end of the world, a mauling is a different matter. As I say the old system was to place responsibility on the owner case by case, but it did not work, something had to be done other than that, can you think of a better way?

my20cents

Now breeds such as boarder collies have far less powerfull jaws than for example a pitbull.

 

So they are not dangerous and bites from them are okay. I can be an idiot owner with a mean border collie and all is good, but I cannot be a responsible owner with a nice pit-bull.

 Does not make sense to me and it never will. BLS is wrong.

my20cents

Blaming only the owners has three large flaws, firstly it is incredibly expensive, and

  So you are saying it is much better to kill the banned breeds and prohibit their sale or purchase? And just because something is expensive does not mean it should not be done. Prosecuting rapists and thieves and murders is expensive.

Sorry, still does not make sense to me and it never will, BLS is wrong.

my20cents

and secondly someone or some animal has to be unfairly bitten

Based on this statement we need to kill all the dogs. Dog’s bite, my dogs have never been bitten or attacked by PB’s but I have had problems with other breeds not listed on your ban. I guess those must be “fair” bites. The little dog that bit my son in the lip was a “fair” bite I guess. Only banned breed’s bite unfairly?

Sorry, still does not make sense to me and it never will, BLS is wrong.

As I say the old system was to place responsibility on the owner case by case, but it did not work, something had to be done other than that, can you think of a better way?

Yes prosecute people who allow their dogs to roam, any dog I do not care what breed it is, prosecuet people who do not care properly for their pets. Prosecuet people who own a dog that mauls someone without cause, sue them for every penny they owe, make them pay the costs of court. Require a special license to own a dog, one that requires you to be educated in its care and needs and training, one that makes you the owner agree to control your dog at all times. Form a vigilante group and beat the stupid people who do not conform within an inch of their lives for being stupid, but do not ban an entire breed of dog because of a bunch of thugs! That makes no more sense than banning guns because criminals have them, the criminals still have the guns! You just can”t have one to protect yourself from the criminal though.

1 - No it is not o.k. to have a bite from a boarder collie, but the severity of the bite is likely to be much less, a boarder collie that would attack a person is still liable to be put down under british law.

2. There has to be a reasonable limit to spending, if the money is not there this system cannot work. As you point out money is needed for crime trials such as rape, murder etc. We already have an under equiped military, fairly frequent strikes from government paid people (teachers at the moment), how much tax exactly do you expect us to pay.

 3. No your son being bitten on the lip is not a fair bite, but if that was a pitty he would need a lot of surgery on his face. www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jan/02/1 even with the extremly small numbers of these dogs we still get this. The bottom line is your son is thankfully o.k. whilst the bite was unfair,it is good that the little dog did not do far worse. Also dont be tempted into the idea of killing dogs, this was not the intention of the ban. The ban was designed to allow dogs to live, but to curb their future numbers.

4. Most of your suggestions were and are in place. regardless of breed it is illegal to allow your dog to roam. Prosecutions of people who own dogs that have mauled do take place. Court costs are at least partially recovered. vigilante groups are wrong. I'm not going into gun laws.

 Sorry my20cents, your argument doesn't wash with me.  Pit Bulls can do MORE damage, yes.  That doesn't negate the damage that other breeds are capable of if not bred and raised properly.  There is currently a big problem with Labs.  Why?  They have pretty good jaw stength too, not as strong as a Pittie or a Rott, but enough to take off an adult face if they chose (the woman with the first ever face transplant - guess why she needed that?  that's it!  her first face was ripped off by her pet lab).

Honestly, most labs now are poorly bred and not getting the exercise, training and general care they need.  They have always been known to be a great family dog, and as with most breeds, once they get popular (yeah, thanks Andrex) the breed goes downhill because so many inept people decide to try their hand at breeding. 

Plus, if you ban a breed, then the people who own that breed do two things:

One - they take "their breed" underground, so it is not even monitored.  The problem grows, as it has been doing in the UK.  The breed was banned 10 years ago, so why now recently have there been so many pit bull attacks in some areas of the country?  Because the responsible, law abiding folk aren;t owning pitties anymore.  Crims are the ones breeding pitties.  As you might imagine being responsible and ethical with a safe canine citizen for a pet is not exactly high on their list of priorities. 

Two - they invent "new breeds" by crossing dogs with characteristics to come up with a "breed" that ISN'T banned, but still makes them look tough and/or they can use in the pit.

Of course there are the responsible pitt owners, who no longer own them because their SAFE, beloved pets, treasured members of the family, have been forcibly dragged away from them.

So now "nice" people are no longer working hard with the breed.  And the unsavoury types have a free rein underground, keeping a pitt population alive, often with poor specimens of the breed, and keeping other "tough" breeds taht aren't banned (yet).  Does that sound like "problem solved" to you?

and yet since the ban on pit severe maulings have dropped...

Its not just the u.k., there are over thirty countries that have banned pitbulls, including Norway, France, Holland, parts of Canada, Parts of America ....

A large problem with pits is that they were bred massively for fighting, this includes attributes such as being incredibly aggresive, a good fighting dog was considered one that would find great excitement from hysteria.

And so Problem not completly solved, but much improved. The underground population may exist but is still illegal, and as such limits the numbers of such dogs. You know the largest group of irresponsible owners are not the violent ones, but the naive, or ignorant. It is the law obiding people who contributed to the amount of the pitbull attacks aswel as criminals.

I will always pity the mother / Father of the dead child over a breed of dog, as should anyone. When a breed is consistently at the top of lists for severe maulings etc it has to be looked at, and it has to take some responsibility. Yes you will find nice pitties, but many of the attacks were from dogs described as such at some time. Dont be fooled into the good person vs bad person we're the victim attitude, because the real victims are the people on the end of a mauling. And you will always find examples of other breeds doing similar acts, but it is important to note the frequency of severe attacks.

And the laws have been effective, hence the amount of countries that have adopted them.

www.dogbitelaw.com/pages/danger.htm#homicides Here is a list of fatal maulings in the U.S. have a look at the consistent mention of breeds. Many of these dogs were known to the victim and considered nice. Jan 07 Fatally attacked by a pitbull she had played with before. Feb 07 killed by a pitbull that had escaped from a pen. April 07 mauled to death by the family pitbull. etc.

 

my20cents

and yet since the ban on pit severe maulings have dropped...

Its not just the u.k., there are over thirty countries that have banned pitbulls, including Norway, France, Holland, parts of Canada, Parts of America ....

A large problem with pits is that they were bred massively for fighting, this includes attributes such as being incredibly aggresive, a good fighting dog was considered one that would find great excitement from hysteria.

And so Problem not completly solved, but much improved. The underground population may exist but is still illegal, and as such limits the numbers of such dogs. You know the largest group of irresponsible owners are not the violent ones, but the naive, or ignorant. It is the law obiding people who contributed to the amount of the pitbull attacks aswel as criminals.

I will always pity the mother / Father of the dead child over a breed of dog, as should anyone. When a breed is consistently at the top of lists for severe maulings etc it has to be looked at, and it has to take some responsibility. Yes you will find nice pitties, but many of the attacks were from dogs described as such at some time. Dont be fooled into the good person vs bad person we're the victim attitude, because the real victims are the people on the end of a mauling. And you will always find examples of other breeds doing similar acts, but it is important to note the frequency of severe attacks.

And the laws have been effective, hence the amount of countries that have adopted them.

www.dogbitelaw.com/pages/danger.htm#homicides Here is a list of fatal maulings in the U.S. have a look at the consistent mention of breeds. Many of these dogs were known to the victim and considered nice. Jan 07 Fatally attacked by a pitbull she had played with before. Feb 07 killed by a pitbull that had escaped from a pen. April 07 mauled to death by the family pitbull. etc.

 

 

 

The fact is that twenty years ago, the banned breed would have been Dobermans, and ten years ago, Rottweilers, so it occurs to me that the only thing your law is accomplishing is to make the bad guys think about getting the next large dog that they can overbreed and cause to hit the top of the bite chart.  You overlook the fact that the well bred Pit is a great family dog, just not a dog that always likes other dogs.  Remember, they were bred to fight dogs, and had to be easily handled by people.  The fact that some humans take these dogs and don't train, manage, or contain them adequately is not the fault of those who do keep these dogs appropriately and responsibly.  I will tell you that I see more kids these days who are injured by Labs and Goldens than by Pits.  And, that's the truth.  You just don't hear about it because it isn't sensational enough to make the news.  Those dogs are PERCEIVED to be sweet and docile, just as the Pit is PERCEIVED to be dangerous.  Also, it has been my experience that when a large dog attacks, people call it a Pit Bull even when they have no idea of what it really is.  Most people can't truly identify the breed versus other bully type dogs or mixes.  I once point blank asked an animal control officer for the city of Boston to do it, and she would not take the test: http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

I don't know who you are, or what your agenda is, but you seem like the same kind of person who refused to ever enter the water again after seeing "Jaws", and oh-by-the-way-the-sky-is-falling.  You should be more upset at the number of people killed in automobile accidents each year!  Now that's a scary statistic.  But, no, you prefer to add to the hysteria and wipe out an entire breed of dogs just because they happen to be the tough dog od this decade.  If everyone used your logic, and enough time went by, all breeds would be wiped out.  What do you own?  Maybe we should just move that breed to the top of the list.  Then, you might expend some energy with those of us who are trying to pass SENSIBLE legislation that attacks the real problem of HUMAN behavior, and not try to solve the problem by committing doggy genocide.

 

I have been around PB's all of my life, my father was an avid hunters and Pits were always a part of his pack, I grew up with a PB and still remember him as the very best dog in my life. Growing up around a pack of dogs consisiting of Pits and various hounds the only time I was ever bitten as a child was by a hound. The dogs were all eating and I went up to visit with them and being just a small child I put my arms around them hugging them while they were eating. One of the hounds bit me and one of the Pits jumped right in and gave that hound a thrashing.

 Many people where I grew up owned pits, some were hunters, some were just family pets and property guardians and some were even fighters. I never heard or talked to anyone who heard of a mauling on a human by a PB. Other dogs, sometimes, chickens, sometimes, but never people.I know maulings have occured, I have seen them on the news, but it is not the entire breed that is the problem. 

 And as for Dogo's well I only know of one reported case of a Dogo attack. They are bred to be family dogs, gentle with children and I could show you several pictures of them fighting wild hogs one minute and laying in the lap of a small child a few hours later. Any Dogo breeder worth their salt would put to sleep anything that was hostile towards kids. I don't know how you got Dogo's in there unless it is because they look like a giant pitbull. 

 As for pitying a dog over the mother and father of a dead child, well I do not recall seeing anyone here say that they would choose a dog over a child or that they pity the dog more. Any dog that bites a child is questionable IMO. I will be the first one to say that if Hektor ever bit a child that would be his first and last bite.

 I will agree that there are breeds (and many of them are not even on your list) that should not be owned by just anyone, they require greater responsibility and commitment to training and socilizing, but that should not mean that no one should ever own them.

 I almost find myself wishing that your breed of choice becomes popular and that one day they come for yours.

spiritdogs

I don't know who you are, or what your agenda is, but you seem like the same kind of person who refused to ever enter the water again after seeing "Jaws", and oh-by-the-way-the-sky-is-falling.  You should be more upset at the number of people killed in automobile accidents each year!  Now that's a scary statistic.  But, no, you prefer to add to the hysteria and wipe out an entire breed of dogs just because they happen to be the tough dog od this decade.  If everyone used your logic, and enough time went by, all breeds would be wiped out.  What do you own?  Maybe we should just move that breed to the top of the list.  Then, you might expend some energy with those of us who are trying to pass SENSIBLE legislation that attacks the real problem of HUMAN behavior, and not try to solve the problem by committing doggy genocide.

 

 Three cheers for Spirit!!

 Well said Anne

You fail to judge my charector well. There is no agenda, in a forum the exchange of points of view is the purpose. Now your point about labs and attacks, not founded please read the information on the previous link I posted which is reference to fatal dog attacks. Also your notion of 10 years ago it would have been x and twenty years ago it would have been y is unfounded. www.injurytriallawyer.com/library/article-fatal-dog-att.cfm shows the largest amount of fatal attacks in the u.s. between '79 - 98 (twenty years) were by pitbulls at 32 per cent. This is of all the many breeds of dog pitbulls were responsible for a third. www.bcrnews.com/articles/2008/01/24/news/doc47981f8f976b1398578287.txt shows of a study of u.s. and canadian dog related fatalities between 1982 - 2006 where again the pitbull is prevelant.

The interesting thing is how people jump to the extreme opposite of what I have said and claim to be using my logic. I believe I have made clear that it is the potential harm a pitbull can do that makes it a danger (as in easily can seriously harm and kill people). Now as you brought up cars I shall use this as my explantion tool. If Im driving and hit someone and the result is some heavy bruising o.k. it is not good, but the person will recover. If I hit someone and break a bone or similar again it is not good, worse than before, but the person will recover. If I hit and kill someone this is a severe problem. Now the three factors that will play a part in me not hitting someone, and there chances if I did are speed, controll and environment. That is why we have speed limits according to the local environment and alcohol restrictions. These are enforced at a cost of millions of pounds to the people of the u.k. but driving is important. We do not have millions of pounds to spend on any kind of dog police force.

Now to clarify a few points. I have not overlooked the great dog a pit can be, but neither have I overlooked the damage that can be done by a percieved great dog, as statistics have shown many of the pit related attacks were by family pets. As you say pits are PERCIEVED to be dangerous, but with good reason, they are the dogs that are at the top of fatality statistics, therefore it would be a logical perception. Finally I do not know about american statistics but in the u.k. the dog has to be positively identified by a professional before it can be placed into its relative statistic. If it cannot be identified for some reason it has to be recorded as such with a brief description. Therefore the statistics are reliable and not affected by public perception.

 Now i'm going round in circles here answering questions most of which I have already answered. now if I may ask you some. Do you think that the thirty plus countries with pitbull bans have done so on a whim? Can you suggest better and realistic legislation to control dogs classed as dangerous which will be enforcable to the entire of society from responsible owners through to ignorant and naive through to those of criminal persasion? Is it more important that your next dog be of a particular breed than that your child can be at less risk? Do you have a solution to address human behaviour or ever think there will be one, or is it more responsible to make decisions based on likely outcome? What is the term 'doggy genocide' if not sensationalism, the ban was not designed to kill existing dogs but to reduce the breeding numbers, as previously explained.

Finally you claim that i am the sort of guy who would not go in the water after seeing jaws, or as you say the sky is falling in, and then you suggest that my breed of dog should be moved to the top of the list as this is going to happen and then .... I think it is clear where the sensationalism is. Since the introduction of the breed bans no dogs have been added to it or have been close, Criminals have not cross bred to the extent you suggest, although it does happen, but the amount of people who move on to the next powerfull breed has not happened in the way you have suggested and the result is a not perfect but improved situation.

yeah i think the thirty plus countries with breed bans were done so on a whim.

i also know these breeds still exist.... thrive even, and no they're not all poor specimens. many of them are classic types from back when the pit bull was something to be proud of.

i also grew up around pits and various other "killers" and never once lost a beloved friend or relative to one.

 and i still have a vicious breed and so far so bloody good! no one has been bitten, snapped at or mauled by the bulldogs..... the jack terrier on the other hand.... better not make too sudden a movement or you're going to get nibbled.

 

my suggestion is to BAN the thought that only certain breeds are dangerous. HELLO!!! A POMERANIAN KILLED AN INFANT!! didnt you hear about that?

second i think there needs to be a license on all dogs. there also needs to be a particularly special and expensive license for a breeding permit for ALL WORKING DOGS. and working dogs, sorry should not be apartment bound house pets. no that is not saying ban them...  but it does mean an extra burden on the owner to insure they get a proper work out. if you dont work the working dog he will work on you. thats a law of nature.

 if your child is at risk, your breed of choice has nothing to do with it. see aforementioned murdering Pomeranian case. if you're child is at risk over a dog then they are likely to be at risk of running with sharp objects, eating toilet bowl cleaner, and not wearing seat belts. check your qualifications as a parent, bub. nearly every attack on a child i have read about involved a highly stressed dog, unattended child, and either the dog was chained or at large. there was always a clear reason for the attack. ALWAYS.

http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/dangerous_dogs.html

 http://dogplay.com/Articles/MyArticles/pitbull.html

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/aruscunningham2005.htm 

http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/item.php?%3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cb%3EWarning%3C/b%3E:%20%20mysql_result():%20supplied%20argument%20is%20not%20a%20valid%20MySQL%20result%20resource%20in%20%3Cb%3E/home/.hahndryer/affi/animalfarmfoundation.org/topic.php%3C/b%3E%20on%20line%20%3Cb%3E179%3C/b%3E%3Cbr%20/%3Etopic=17&item=93

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus74fordhamlrev2847.htm

The American Veterinary Medical Association's suggestions on how to deal with dog bite issues:

http://www.avma.org/public_health/dogbite/dogbite.pdf

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/158745

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/Research/PGCMD/PGCMTOC1.htm

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/06/060206fa_fact

 http://www.caninechronicle.com/Features/Battaglia_07/battaglia_907.html

http://www.hsus.org/pets/pets_related_news_and_events/pooch_prejudice.html

http://lawlib.lclark.edu/podcast/?p=390

http://dogpolitics.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/05/list_of_banned_.html 

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/articles/breedbanslabradormistake.htm

 

jack russell nibbled is exactly the point. bulldogs are not considered dangerous in u.k. If you grew up around pits it is fair to say you understand them, you have a good way of understanding there posture, you are confident around them, this cannot be said of all (possibly most) under tens. Pomeranian killing child, please read previouse posts, pitbulls are consitently amongst the top (or at the top) of the national statistics for having done this, a one off case is just that, multiple cases in a year is a different matter entirely. I disagree with the idea of always a clear reason for an attack. Pitbulls still being bred, already covered, outcome they are far less abundant and are much less likely to be found walking down my street. All children are unatended for a short while, your in the garden the phone rings you go to get it, by the age of ten where I live kids are o.k. to walk from place to place with each other within reasonable hours usually after telling their parents where they are going. Of the examples I have seen a lot of the attacks were during the supervision of a parent or adult, of those that aren't almost in all cases a non relating adult has tried to step in. Now to stress a dog can also happen outside of your control, other dogs barking etc.

 But well done. What you call second should be called first. You are the first person on the site who has come up with a reasonable begginings of something. You sir have appreciated the situation accounting that there must be measures in place as such breeds are potentially dangerous. You disagree with what we have at the moment but you do agree that restricting breeding is a good idea. You suggest that there should be restrictions on the type of accomodation that can be suitable for such dogs. You suggest licencing which I presume would involve regular checks. It is the owner which appreciates his/her dog may be dangerous or even considered so by others that is a responsible owner, and you are the first to show this sentiment. So many attacks from dogs to people or other animals, regardless of breed, are so often the result of people over humanising their dogs, or replacing common sense with affection. but sometimes this is not the case and just like so many huskies that live for years paying little attention to the cat and then one day with no warning killing it, what is in the breed is possible to come out (it may not be likely but it can), a responsible owner must appreciate this and you are the first to demonstrate so.

my20cents

A large problem with pits is that they were bred massively for fighting, this includes attributes such as being incredibly aggresive, a good fighting dog was considered one that would find great excitement from hysteria.

 

A true, but incomplete statement.  It should read: "...being incredibly aggressive TO OTHER DOGS"

Of course, care must be taken with Pitts around OTHER DOGS.  The same can be said of ANY terrier! 

A well bred, well raised Pitt should be one of the safest dogs around PEOPLE you can own.  Dog aggression and human aggression and the capacity for both are NOT the same.

A rather nice by-product of being bred for fighting means they also have an incredibly high tolerance for pain, which usually means they are able and willing to tolerate a lot more from a child, than another dog will before feeling pushed to bite, giving the supervising adult more time to intervene if needed and keep both parties safe.

I think the whole "dog bite statistics" are botched anyway.  An attack is called abite; a puncture is called a bite; a nip is called a bite.  Clearly the people gleaning this info have not got the foggiest about dogs or what they should be looking for/asking about.