Breed specific dog bans.

[JWayne625]

I live in New Brunswick, not 20 miles from where that little Waddel boy was mauled to death by 3 Rottweilers, and I agree that something needs to be done, I'm just not sure what. Banning certain breeds sounds good on the eurface, but then there are occasions where other breeds also bite. Do we just keep adding to the list of banned dog breeds or do we develop a regulations for all dog breeds.

I do not believe in allowing a dog to have one bite. To me that one bite is too many. I am very intimidated by dogs, and not just the dogs being talked about, because I am a dog bite victim. All I remember is that it was a small short haired white dog, with black spots, as I recall about the height of a small poodle. I do remember that I suffered an asthema attack and was rushed to hospital and spent a couple of days in an oxygen tent. I have been frightened of snarling dogs ever since and size does not matter.

Maybe a though would be to require all dog owners to license their dogs, and as a condition of licensing provide proof of insurance coverage. $1 Million of coverage is the amount being talked about in many circles, dogs must be on leashes no more than 2 meters in length, and when on their own property restricted to that property. Of course some type of provisions would have to be made to assure that deliveries could be made without fear that the dog amy become protective and attack a stranger on the property. I know that when my boys delivered papers we had to call a certain neighbour so that their paper could be delivered, otherwise the dog would attack. I went through that myself when I had a paper-route, especially on collection day.

Insurance coverage would put the onus on the owner to make sure they were covered in case their dog attacked some individual and would show some sort of committment to that ownership. In the city where I live it is getting quite impossible to sit in the city square due to some undesirables with their pitbulls, and Rotweilers. Many of these individuals are also conducting business while they are hanging around the square.

What is the feeling?

[Big Blue Machine]

You can't a specific brand of dog, you just have to make people treat them right and so the dogs won't attack other people.

[caesar]

Certain breeds are more prone to sudden unprovoked attacks and can kill. You cannot compare the danger of a pit bull or a rottweiller and a poodle or shih tzu.

Every time one of these pit bull types attack someone the owners always claim it was such a nice dog and played with their kids all the time. That is quite possible. They have been bred for their fighting abilities and people who byuy them are largely looking for an intimidating dog for guarding purpose or just to itimidate people or illegal activities and tend to treat the dog differently; not the bonding and companionship of a smaller less aggreesive breed of dog. What really ticks me off; they pay the same license fee as we small breed owners whose dog is kept indoors.

Large aggressive breeds should not be allowed in the city and owners should carry insurance and face prosecution if their dog attacks unprovoked especially if it can be proven the dog was not raised to be friendly.

[Cartman]

I am not sure why people keep saying that it is so diffifcult to know which dogs to ban. It is very easy. Simple mathematics can be used to identify the breeds that are most likely to maul (statistically significant).

Alternatively, maybe we should only allow the most placid dogs. I do not see any comparison between the right to own a dog and the right to walk safely down the street. Hey, I love dogs but this is a no brainer.

As BBM says though, even a relatively pleasant dog can be made malicious if the owner makes it suffer enough. I know for a fact that some people just leave their dogs tied up and basically forget about them even if they do feed them. These people should be identified and prevented from owning any pet.

[caesar]

As BBM says though, even a relatively pleasant dog can be made malicious if the owner makes it suffer enough. I know for a fact that some people just leave their dogs tied up and basically forget about them even if they do feed them. These people should be identified and prevented from owning any pet.

Exactly; These animals are not really pets but tools for intimidation. Pitt bulls in particular have been inbred so much for fighting purposes that they often attack for little or no reason. One man I knew refused to allow his wife to take his child to the doctor after their dog bite the child in fear that they may put down his dog. Perhaps we should just ban any dog breeding without a license. Back yard breeders are responsible for these unstable breeds. I realize that many properly bred pit bulls are very affectionate and safe pets for the family.

[JWayne625]

In a case a few years ago we had a mad pitbull loose in a part of our city and he was attacking anyone he seen. He severely bit two adults before they could get into their houses. A bit further down the street a girl I worked with was out for a walk with her two children, (one walking and the other in a stroller), and the pitbull went after them. She grabbed the youngest out of the stroller, and managed to get herself and the two children into the nearest hallway and closed the door. She watched while the dog attacked the stroller. In the meantime the police, and animal control had been called by one of the previous victim's and when they arrived they managed to somehow subdue the dog. It was taken to the animal shelter while they attempted to ascertain who owned the animal, and it was announced that the animal would be put down and tests would be conducted to see if the dog was rabid. During the night someone broke into the animal shelter and left with the dog. I can't remember whether they ever did find the animal or who had broken it out of the shelter, because the story just died. I do remember that the people who were bitten had to endure shots just in case the animal was rabid.

If this animal has not been recaptured, I would suggest we have a very dangerous animal out there somewhere that could be like the perverbial stick of dynamite, ready to explode, and let's hope it isn't a small child. Obviously whoever freed the dog has a very warped sense of right and wrong. Normal sane people don't protect these types of dangerous animals.

[Tawasakm]

Of course some type of provisions would have to be made to assure that deliveries could be made without fear that the dog amy become protective and attack a stranger on the property. I know that when my boys delivered papers we had to call a certain neighbour so that their paper could be delivered, otherwise the dog would attack. I went through that myself when I had a paper-route, especially on collection day.

Reminds me of my days delivering pizza. I remember once taking a delivery, knocking on the front door, then being attacked by a dog when the owner opened the front door (the dog shot out like it was fired from a cannon). I was furious at the owner more then the dog. After all he had ordered the pizza; did he think we delivered by transmat beams?

I think the issue of dog safety comes in two parts. The first is the problem of vicious breeds. Some breeds are naturally more aggressive then others. I agree they should be banned. The second problem is dog owners. Many dog owners do not care for their pets or supervise their pets properly and therefore create danger. Children can unwittingly provoke dogs into attacks - it is up to the owners of those dogs to supervise. Neglected or maltreated dogs can also develop 'antisocial' behaviour. If a labrador bites, for instance, it quite unlikely to be the result of natural aggression on the dogs part.

So I think we need to come at this from two sides; educate dog owners and the general public about dog treatment and safety etc, and ban those breeds that are demonstrably more aggressive (such as pitbulls).

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear all,

I normally spout off about all sorts of things, but don't really make any claim of being an expert.

Except in this case. I am a dog expert.

Dogs exhibit instinctual behaviour, moreso if the circumstances are right. It is for this reason 'pit fighters' are not allowed into the Dog Daycare which my wife and I own.

Dogs were mostly bred throughout history with certain 'jobs to do'. Herders, ratters, retrievers, game-flushers and 'bloodsport' dogs being the most common jobs. They all exhibit behaviour along their lineage. For example, English (or British) Bulldogs were used for 'bull-baiting, and to this day when they do the 'play-bow' to other dogs, they rest their chins on the ground. This behaviour was so that the 'tied up bull' could not get a horn underneath the dog and flip it up or eviscerate it.

Another quick example is the Border Collie. The 'Eternal Military Police' of the dog world. they, like a few other breeds, were not subjected to breed standards for looks, colour, or height, as most of the other breeds. They were bred for the longest time on ability alone. Many 'Kennel Clubs' do not recognize some of these breeds, or have been very slow to, because almost all breed standards are based on esthetics.

The Pit Fighters also were bred this way. They have the widest range of acceptable standards (most breeds must be within about 2 in. at the shoulders, while some of the pit fighters are allowed a variance of 4 in. or more) because they were also bred for 'ability' and not looks alone.

I believe all 'pit-fighting' breeds should be allowed to become extinct, just as the fighting has been discouraged. That being said, muzzling in public and leash laws can do little to make a difference, as most attacks do not occur while the dog was 'out for a walk'.

Most attacks occur when dogs escaped from a yard or were on the owner's own property.

Any dog can be made aggressive or mean, but very few breeds have to be trained away from that, as it is their natural instinct. Couple that with their ability to kill, and you have a pit-fighter.

I am in favour of banning the breeding of The American Pitbull, the American Staffordshire Terrier, The Perro de Presa Canario, those breeds that were rewarded with breeding rights based on their ability and willingness to kill even it's own littermates.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Cartman,

Simple mathematics can be used to identify the breeds that are most likely to maul (statistically significant).

The statistics show that the breed most likely to bite is also the breed with the highest # of AKC registrations. At one time, it was the American Cocker Spaniel, at another it was the German Shepherd.

As an addition to my previous post, I have met several 'Pit Bulls', which were fantastic dogs. They would do nothing but lick your face, wag their whole body, and play play play.

However, given the right circumstance and stimulus, (not even meaning abuse) they can easily kill you, your child, or, more readily, another dog.

[JWayne625]

theloniusfleabag; Excellent post and it was also very informative. It has shed a great deal of light onto why certain breeds like the pitbull are so agressive. As I pointed out in my last post, the pitbull that attacked those people and even a stroller had somehow escaped and was free to so what this breed does naturally, which is to attack unprovoked.

[August1991]

I found this through another link:

MOTION: THE TORONTO HUMANE SOCIETY UNEQUIVOCALLY CONDEMNS BILL 132. IT IS TOTALLY UNREALISTIC AND DRACONIAN AND MANY INNOCENT ANIMALS WILL NEEDLESSLY SUFFER OR DIE AS A RESULT. PET OWNERS CARE ABOUT DOG BITES AS MUCH AS ANY ONTARIANS, BUT THIS LEGISLATION, CONCEIVED AND DRAFTED IN SECRET, WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. ATTACKS ARE ROOTED IN ANIMAL ABUSE BY BREEDERS AND OWNERS AND ACTION BY THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOUR. THIS BILL WILL PENALIZE RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERS, AND, WHEN FOUND INEFFECTIVE, WILL RESULT IN THE BANNING OF OTHER BREEDS.

Toronto Humane Society

----

Most of the 85 breeds fell into the hunting, herding or guarding groups and were created primarily in Europe or North America in the past 200 years to conform with the concept of purebred dogs, defined by appearance, behavior and closed gene pools, the researchers said. The oldest breeds tend to be most distinct, while the more recent creations, like retrievers, setters, pointers and hounds in the hunting group, are less well-defined genetically.

New York Times

Thelonious has a point here. Many breeds seem to be of recent vintage and I suppose, some breeds could just as easily disappear.

[caesar]

Pitt bulls can kill when they attack; other breeds do not have this same capacity. A dog bit while painful generally will not kill anyone except for these breeds that they wish to ban. I would imagine; they could grandfather the clause in and start with no breeding all these animals should be neutered.

[Cartman]

Do people think the problem is one more of owner neglect or some twisted abuse? What kind of sicko would intentionally breed a dog to be especially vicious?

[Tawasakm]

Cartman  Posted on Nov 26 2004, 02:22 AM

Do people think the problem is one more of owner neglect or some twisted abuse? What kind of sicko would intentionally breed a dog to be especially vicious?

Heres my two cents worth (opinion only). I think there are three problems.

It was my understanding that certain breeds of dog are naturally agressive and more likely to attack humans/other animals. Such as Pit Bulls. If this is true it must make sense to ban these animals in populated areas.

It is also true that owners can mistreat dogs which can create aggressive behaviour. Surely in these instances there must be laws in place to prohibit these people ever owning pets again.

Sometimes children can unintentionally cause dogs to be agressive by behaving the wrong way. I think this means that dog owners should be required to supervise whenever children are around dogs (excepting perhaps kids around their own family dog).

So I think the solution may be to ban the truely agressive breeds, make owners accountable for their treatment of pets (and be ready to ban them from ever owning pets again) and require supervision from dog owners. Education is probably also a key things. Teaching children not to stare into a dogs eyes is a nice handy tip for instance.

[Big Blue Machine]

You can't ban a specific kind of dog. If a Toyota was the car that caused the most accidents in the province, would you ban Toyotas? Of course not. People will be attracted to pit-bulls because of it's bad dog reputation.

[Tawasakm]

BBM I don't think that a Toyota is at all analagous to a Pitbull. If there was a problem in automotive safety standards it is possible for the government to legislate new safety standards. If Toyota wished to have continued access to the Canadian market they would make the necessary changes to their design and implement those changes in production. That doesn't work for a pitbull.

As to some people being attracted to such breeds that does not prohibit banning them for public safety. You might be attracted, for example, to a leopard because of its deadly grace. This does not mean it should be legal to possess such an animal in a populated area. The animal is inherently dangerous. So are pitbulls (although I won't argue they are AS dangerous). Logically the attraction of certain people toward dangerous animals should not be indulged to the detriment of public safety.

Mind you I'm not an expert in this area. So I may also be talking nonsense.

[August1991]

Mind you I'm not an expert in this area. So I may also be talking nonsense.

As an aside, not being an expert never stopped me from wading in on an issue here. (And judging by many posts, I'm not alone.)

Game on...

[Tawasakm]

OK August1991. This is my green light to stand on the soapbox and let all and sundry know what Tawasakm thinks about eveything.

Incidentally as a further point about agressive breeds. My parents own a poodle (not agressive) which I used to walk on occasion. When out walking if we ever encountered others walking agressive breeds I'd have to take steps to protect our dog. There are breeds which seem almost universally gentle and friendly. When running into these the dogs would just happily exchange pleasantries while I chat with the other dogwalkers.

Its not only the welfare of people that needs to be considered but also the welfare of all those friendly, gentle dogs that are out there (and so enrich our lives).

I've managed to make myself a little sad talking about this since that dog (and my parents) now live four hundred kilometres away. And you can't talk to dogs on the phone. Actually I'll stop getting off topic and just post this.

[caesar]

Do people think the problem is one more of owner neglect or some twisted abuse? What kind of sicko would intentionally breed a dog to be especially vicious?

They were and still are bred for fighting. Illegal but still happening. Of course they are a favorite of drug dealers to protect their crops. I character in this neighbourhood went around breaking into cars along with his pit bull. Who is going to chase him. Our car alarm went off and I spotted him walking away. I sure wasn't going after him.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Tawasakm,

You might be attracted, for example, to a leopard because of its deadly grace. This does not mean it should be legal to possess such an animal in a populated area. The animal is inherently dangerous.

Indeed, this does happen. Some people try to own 'exotics' and sometimes, thought rarely, they are successful. However, look at Mr. Roy, the 'lion tamer', who was mauled by an animal he had 'tamed' and was very familiar with.

I recently read a story on the National Geographic site of a man who had an alligator as his family pet. Evidently, alligators and crocs can be 'socialized', and he allowed this (10 footer, I think) to play with his dog and children. The only thought that came to my mind was "tick-tick-tick-tick......"

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear caesar,

You are right, dogfighting is still an 'underground sport' in many places (including Calgary, I have heard).

Cartman asks

What kind of sicko would intentionally breed a dog to be especially vicious?

What kind of a person would waste their time breeding a pit-fighter that wasn't?

I think it is true, to a large degree, that those who seek to own Pit Bulls, et al, desire to be 'intimidating'. Recently, there were photos circulating the Internet of some 'locals' in Nigeria (I think) who had leashed some hyenas and used then as 'intimidation' on city streets. To a large degree, this works, because I would not want to be within a mile of those fools.

[Tawasakm]

Indeed, this does happen. Some people try to own 'exotics' and sometimes, thought rarely, they are successful.

I presume that the possession of exotic animals is far more regulated and restrictive then is the case for cats and dogs. Perhaps ownership of breeds such as pitbulls could be bumped up to a similar level of regulation and restriction.

[Big Blue Machine]

Exactly, we don't need to ban pit-bulls, we just need to make them safer, and make sure there are harder regulations.

[caesar]

Exactly, we don't need to ban pit-bulls, we just need to make them safer,

Make them safer????? what do you suggest? that we remove all their teeth.

[Big Blue Machine]

They will never be controlled fully, they will always bite people. They are dangerous to the public. That's why the Liberals are worried about them.