Pitbull ban?

AJS said:

Here in the UK pitbull "types" are already banned.

It looks like laws are coming in over in the US to ban pitbulls in certain areas/states?

Do you agree with banning of breeds, specifically pitbulls, or not?

I think it's the owners responsibility and pitbulls are no more dangerous than any other breed.

The law here banning pitbull "types" and in other countries has proven to be ineffective and I struggle to understand why other places are implementing ideas that just don't work. :unsure:

Click to expand...

While I understand the reasoning, the logic doesn't follow. Pit bulls nearly went extinct in the post-war dog era until their aggression was breed out making them viable as family pets, thus giving them a new reason to exist. Their war dog past, the fact that anything will be aggressive if raised to be so and that dog fighting clubs continue to raise 'war dog' pit bulls have lead to a mistaken stereotype for their continued aggressiveness.

Generally speaking, modern pit bulls are little more then lap dogs too big to fit in a lap. :giggle:

Normally I would be against banning a particular breed of dog but with breeds such as Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and Presa Canarios we are entering into different territory. Whatever the reasons, these breeds are by far the most common when it comes to dog on human and even dog on other animal attacks. Maybe it's not the dog itself but the breeder and the owner but whatever the reason these dogs tend to be more dangerous than other breeds.

Perhaps as with guns, these breeds should require a license and should be allowed to be owned only by those who have undergone a dog safety course and ownership by felons or minors should be forbidden.

AJS said:

Are they really? Or are they just the ones we see on the news and in the papers because it makes a better story?

I'd be interested in any statistics you might have that show pitbulls, rottweilers or presa canarios are responsible for more bites than other breeds. Or any data from testing that proves the temperaments of these breeds makes them more of a risk to humans.



So if it's not the dog itself that is the problem, and it's actually the breeders and/or owners, why are we targetting the breed? Should we not be going after the unscrupulous breeders and irresponsible owners?



I think that should go for all breeds tbh.

Click to expand...

Here you go. Go to the URL to read a more detailed account of dog bites and dog bite resulting in human fatality.

"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf

You can't blame the dog, you blame the breeder. If you grow up in an environment without fighting and viciousness, how do you become vicious? I also agree with the statement about convicted felons not being allowed to own dogs.

AJS said:

Here in the UK pitbull "types" are already banned.

It looks like laws are coming in over in the US to ban pitbulls in certain areas/states?

Do you agree with banning of breeds, specifically pitbulls, or not?

I think it's the owners responsibility and pitbulls are no more dangerous than any other breed.

The law here banning pitbull "types" and in other countries has proven to be ineffective and I struggle to understand why other places are implementing ideas that just don't work. :unsure:

Click to expand...

Pit Bulls are much less likely to attack than many other dogs. However, Pit bull attacks are more likely to result in death or serious injury than attacks by any other dog. CDC stats 1979 - 1998. Depending on statistical approach pit bulls killed more than the next three breeds combined on one chart and only slightly less than the next three breeds combined on the other.

I think owners should be required to carry liability insurance on the dogs in case of attack.

I think defining "pitbull" is difficult and easily skirted by slight breeding variations that stay ahead of the law.

Frogger said:

Perhaps as with guns, these breeds should require a license and should be allowed to be owned only by those who have undergone a dog safety course and ownership by felons or minors should be forbidden.

Click to expand...

Gun ownership shouldn't require a license and if owning pitbulls were mentioned in the Bill of Rights I'd say the same about them. But they're not. A license is a good idea.

ferrari353 said:

You can't blame the dog, you blame the breeder.

Click to expand...

I an and do. The breeder is not biting and mauling anyone to death. The dog is. I may hold the owner responsible for the act of the dog but the dog is doing the killing - so I blame the dog.