Illegal dogs

Pit bulls have a reputation for mauling kids because they are purchased and (not) trained by people who want a dog that is capable of mauling people. They are also used in illegal dogfighting.

I don't know that there is a breed of dog that doesn't bite. I've know retrievers, rottweillers, and setters that have torn bits off of people. Any dog can be trained to be vicious - some just have a predisposed tempermant that makes it easier.

Banning things isn't an answer. When you ban something it simply states that the government isn't interested in what causes the problem, they're just interested in making it go away as soon as possible. Then again, they still let just anyone have children - way more dangerous.

An idea - maybe discussing alternatives (including banning) as a solution. People can always go get a dog, but if it was more difficult, maybe required training and housing checks, there would be fewer unwanted animals, fewer attacks, etc.. Explore all the options, say why one is more practical, economical and better for the animals in the long term. Just a thought.

Great, thanks for the suggestion. Required training is an excellent idea for a solution.

One thing to look at is the nature of the problem, in other words is it even a significant problem?

Sensationalism with animal maulings and killings abounds, just look at the sharks on the news on a slow news week.

It may well be that the statistical probability of said attacks is negligible and is subject to the usual beast mauling hyperbole.

This is the type of "problem" that gets far more attention than quotidian problems. Beer kills more people than dogs do.

The most dangerous animal to humans is the mosquito, by a LONG shot.

Craven brings up an excellent point. Lots of available directions for you to take.

If you do any research on Craven's point, please post it. I would be very interested to see it.

When working in an ER, I saw a young girl come in with a chunk out of her arm the size of a tennis ball, thanks to a pet Chow. There definitely are some dangerous breeds out there, but whenever you talk of banning anything, you're getting into complicated issues. Who is going to make the determination that a breed is dangerous? Are mixed breeds threats? How do you go about proving a dogs heritage? Unfortunately there are people out there with a mindset that owning a dangerous dog empowers them. Strict enforcment
of leash laws and imposing stiff fines on violators are still the best options IMO.

Also make sure to do some general research on existing legislation. For instance, what are the laws about dog attacks where you are? In many (or most? or all?) American cities a single attack on a human can be grounds to but a dog down. In Seattle, WA, three dog-on-dog attacks necessitate the dog being put down. This goes hand-in-hand with Craven's suggestion that you address whether this really is a problem. You might also look into whether there is any due process involved: what sort of evidence does there have to be of an attack for the authorities to intervene?

(I've worked in a shelter, so I tend to look at this more from the dog's point of view than the person's.)

I once worked for a time in a shelter as well--and the literature there stated that the dog most likely to bite is the cocker spaniel. Basically, this is the same situation as one finds when teenagers are out of control--those responsible have failed. Any dog well cared for and well trained is not threat; any dog neglected or abused has a high potential for violence.

Ive never heard of a sixyear old mauled by some beer.
If i tied a can of beer to the railing of my house and some kids passed by,
Id venture to say that the beer would not attack any of the kids.
in the UK, pit bull terriers are limited to registered owners , and the dogs must be neutered. Tosa inu and dogo Argentino breeds are actually banned in UK. In US, its a local ordinance f irresponsible owners and kids being in the same neighborhoods is a recipe for brutal attacks by a dog breed that is bred as a weapon not a pet.
. ill bet Craven, that, the incidence of attacks by fighting breeds is much more a routine occurence than are shark attacks.
Of course its the owner and breeder and trainer. We have a friend with two staffordshire terriers, . the dogs are very friendly but also very aggressively so. If I had small kids, I would never let them be in the same area with any real pit bulls, no matter how friendly the owner sez they are.That would be totally stupid and irresponsible on my part.
I would, of course be concerned about other pet dogs , but a pit b ull and the two other breeds are principally bred for fighting. They had no other use.(yeh the dogo Argentino was originally bred to kill mountain lions) , and remember , the pit bull is a specific breed that looks similar to the Staffordshire terrier, from which it was originally bred with the bulldog. The staffordshire , does not have a fierce reputation as does the P bull and many times the two breeds are confused by unknowing owners, the staff is a bit smaller than the pit bull and has a slightly more pointed snout. Many people say that , "My pit b ull is a honey" and it turns out that they have a staff' not a pit bull.

Playing with a pit bull is like playing with nitro-you may luck out and not blow yourself up (this time), or you may not even have a bottle of nitro. Im for strict regulation on dogos..., tosas...., and Pit Bulls, and no logic like cdK tried is gonna change my mind

There is another breed cross, called the Fila Brasileiro, bred to hunt wild cats and hunt an maul people, I dont know whether this breed is even recognized by the uK or aKC.
Once aggression is bred into the line, it must be bred out before you can have a 'relatively safe" pet.

My vote is, "if youre sure its a pit bull,
dont keep it anywhere but a zoo"

To the best of my knowledge, some breeds have been outlawed in Britain, or somewhere in Europe. Does anyone know if that is true?

never mind that one, i had not read the last msg before I posted it, sorry

Pit bulls are the only dogs that bother me other than the ones who are trained to be mean. I also agree that it's bad dog owners or no training that make bad dogs. I have a neighbor who has 3 German Shephards that are mean. The owner of the dogs keeps them outside on short chains (one of them in a 8' x 8' fenced area) and are obviously neglected. A few years ago one of the dogs chased my son on our property while my son was on his bike. The dog caught up to him and bit through his sneaker. Fortunately my son was not hurt, but When I went over to confront the owner, he got in my face saying my son egged the dog on by laughing at him. Needless to say, I warned the owner that if any of his dogs attacked anyone in my family again, I would take them for everything they have and kill the dogs as well. We haven't had any problems since ;-)

Anyway, I don't know how I feel about banning any dogs, but pit bulls can't be trusted. I had a friend who had one that was only half pit bull and she had to put it down after it attacked a neighbors dog and little girl. I don't like those dogs at all.

Good luck with that and welcome to A2K :-D

As a corgi owner - see all the bits about the queen's corgis and the princess' dog...

Corgis are, I think, heel nippers by breeding. I keep a close eye on mine, leash him outside at all times except in my own yard. Generally it isn't necessary, but he will cheerfully attack a pitbull if he sees one. I work things out, usually, so he doesn't see any pitbulls. Not that easy, people keep lots of tough dogs up here. Including perhaps me.

Quiet, Pacco. Calmo', calmo'.

One alternative: make dog owners take financial responsibility for all damage done by the dog, *before* purchasing the biting-machi... er, adoreable pet.

If all dog owners were required to carry liability insurance in order to get a dog,
then it doesn't matter what types of dogs are allowed or not. Much like owning a dangerous car.

The insurance company could set it's rates based upon breed, location, owner characteristics, gender, occupation, training, public complaints -- any criteria that it could possibly find relevant.

Then at least people could deal with the reality of cold, hard statistics when purchasing whichever dog they desire. Nothing motivates people like a $2000 insurance bill!

i SERIOUSLY doubt that an insurance company would write such a policy.Insurance companies operate on much the same theory as a casino. They wish to take your money and never want to have to return it. One claim would possibly break the fund.

Besides, I don't care about insurance if your dog bit my child - or maybe I would care after all, but it would be very secondary to my child being bitten.

Anybody follow that horrible death in San Francisco a couple of years ago, with an ill maintained Primo Canarsi (or similar name) actually killing a woman in her apartment hallway?

It was part of a dog breeding group for a fellow at a penitentiary...

No, I'm not a link chaser, right now anyway. I am sorry for the dog, and much much sorrier for the woman who died.

People get thrills out of keeping vicious animals, or those primed to be vicious. Well, me, I think of government oversight to protect the public, but then I'm comfortable with that, and some of you might not be.

yeh, a point that id just forgotten, sorry. (hangs head in deep shame0

farmer, I never mean to shame you, I always pay attention to what you say. You just were making a point.

A number of insurers have already added questions about dogs to their underwriting investigations. Some breeds will mean you will not be able to get home owner's insurance at all from some insurers. Others mean an increase in premium. This goes back at least 5-6 years in Canada and the U.S.