Should we ban some breeds?

[cagirl]

Originally Posted by Hunther's Dad

I have an idea...let's ban busybodies who do nothing more than figure out what they're going to try to get banned today.

In the 1970's I rode dirt bikes in the desert. Banned - too destructive to the fragile ecosystem, don't you know.

In the 1980's and 1990's I got interested in competition shooting. AAAAHHH! MY G-d he's got GUNS! No further explanation needed.

And now, in the new millennium, "they" want to ban my bleepin' DOG.

Somebody needs to tell these people that the world doesn't want to be saved...the world wants to be left alone. Now.

You are so right, the problem I have is we are suppose to be the land of the free yet we have rules and laws even down to what we can eat and drink lol

[codmaster]

Originally Posted by LaRen616

......................
Not only that but another thing that really upsets me is Home Owners Insurance not covering you if you have a dog that they do not permit. I have American Family Insurance and I cannot own a Pitbull, Rottweiler, Akita, Chow, Presa Canerio or a Wolf Hybrid or anything mixed with them. Ridiculous

Actually, most of the time insurance company decisions like this are based on statistical facts derived from loss history data in the industry - i.e. the breeds that some companies won't insure are the ones causing the industry payoffs.

[Jessiewessie99]

Originally Posted by codmaster

Actually, most of the time insurance company decisions like this are based on statistical facts derived from loss history data in the industry - i.e. the breeds that some companies won't insure are the ones causing the industry payoffs.

My insurance won't let us own Dobermans, Rottweilers, and Pitbulls. WHy because they think they are "Dangerous breeds". My family and I were thinking of getting a Doberman before getting a GSD, and found that out about our insurance. Funny thing is I have been around all 3 of those breeds and none are dangerous.

[selzer]

I will play devil's advocate:

I own GSDs, but it can be a dangerous breed. I bought my house for 29k. I bought my care for 11k. I owe 60k on my house, and 3+ years on my car which already has over 160k miles on it. My homeowner's insurance has my house insured for approximately 80k. So, so long as my dogs do not maul someone badly enough that they will require surgery, my homeowner's insurance will probably be able to manage a dog bite before they drop me.

The fact is that German Shepherds for the most part take a bite or two, it may need to be seen by a physician. Usually it does not require surgery.

No way on earth should I own a pit bull. Sorry, but pit bulls, yes or many of the dogs that make up the family of bully breeds, have the capability of doing serious damage to people. You can say that they are not people aggressive and are bred to not be people aggressive, but the fact of the matter is, there are many incidents of maulings, people mauled by pit bulls, sorry bully breeds. And the serious nature of the injuries sustained and reported often have a hefty price tag.

It may not be the breeds. It may be the owners. But maybe, just maybe there should be breed specific legislation that requires an insurance policy and a clean criminal record to be eligible to own these dogs. Maybe it should be required that you are a home owner.

Now the screams of "racist" and "classist" will pour out.

Maybe we are not doing anyone any favors by allowing dog ownership to everyone. But the fact of the matter is that while your cocker spaniel or scottie may be more likely to bite than a GSD or a pitt, they are not likely to cause serious injuries.

Somehow you have to find a way to keep your beloved bullies out of the hands of those people who have nothing to lose. Until then you will be fighting BSL forever.

I do not think that every dog owner should foot the bill for these dogs' damages whether inflicted on dogs or humans. I do not think that people who own retrievers and hounds and toy dogs should have have to buy $100,000 insurance policies for each dog. That would be completely unfair. But it is too late to require it after a dog bites. Sorry, but waiting for dogs to maul people means that people do not have to even bother being careful until they have a dog that seriously injures or kills someone. Not good. If requiring people to pay extra to own these dogs or to have them covered by a home owners insurance policy or by a bond on the house itself, well, then people will care more about not letting that first incident ever happen.

[Jessiewessie99]

Originally Posted by selzer

I will play devil's advocate:

I own GSDs, but it can be a dangerous breed. I bought my house for 29k. I bought my care for 11k. I owe 60k on my house, and 3+ years on my car which already has over 160k miles on it. My homeowner's insurance has my house insured for approximately 80k. So, so long as my dogs do not maul someone badly enough that they will require surgery, my homeowner's insurance will probably be able to manage a dog bite before they drop me.

The fact is that German Shepherds for the most part take a bite or two, it may need to be seen by a physician. Usually it does not require surgery.

No way on earth should I own a pit bull. Sorry, but pit bulls, yes or many of the dogs that make up the family of bully breeds, have the capability of doing serious damage to people. You can say that they are not people aggressive and are bred to not be people aggressive, but the fact of the matter is, there are many incidents of maulings, people mauled by pit bulls, sorry bully breeds. And the serious nature of the injuries sustained and reported often have a hefty price tag.

It may not be the breeds. It may be the owners. But maybe, just maybe there should be breed specific legislation that requires an insurance policy and a clean criminal record to be eligible to own these dogs. Maybe it should be required that you are a home owner.

Now the screams of "racist" and "classist" will pour out.

Maybe we are not doing anyone any favors by allowing dog ownership to everyone. But the fact of the matter is that while your cocker spaniel or scottie may be more likely to bite than a GSD or a pitt, they are not likely to cause serious injuries.

Somehow you have to find a way to keep your beloved bullies out of the hands of those people who have nothing to lose. Until then you will be fighting BSL forever.

I do not think that every dog owner should foot the bill for these dogs' damages whether inflicted on dogs or humans. I do not think that people who own retrievers and hounds and toy dogs should have have to buy $100,000 insurance policies for each dog. That would be completely unfair. But it is too late to require it after a dog bites. Sorry, but waiting for dogs to maul people means that people do not have to even bother being careful until they have a dog that seriously injures or kills someone. Not good. If requiring people to pay extra to own these dogs or to have them covered by a home owners insurance policy or by a bond on the house itself, well, then people will care more about not letting that first incident ever happen.

Mostly the dog is either abused, neglected, poorly socialized, or not even a pitbull or all of those.

[selzer]

so?

To the its-not-a-pitbull-people: The legislation usually is written up that lists the different breeds that they lump in with pitties, and mixes thereof. Some of them say that if it resembles a pitbull, then it is not allowed or whatever. We can say there is no pit bull breed until the cows come home but it does not change the fact that bully breeds have an inordinate amount of serious injuries to their credit. And fighting over terminology isn't getting anyone anywhere.

Bully breed people have to come up with a solution to the problem. Right now their very popular dogs are in some very irresponsible hands and have caused very serious injuries to too many people.

I do not know what the answer is, but I would definitely restrict ownership so that only people who are likely to be responsible owners can own them. To all others, mandatory spay/neuter of existing dogs of these breeds, and then not allowing these dogs' ownership to be transferred to people without certain credentials.

Maybe people should have to purchase a dangerous dog license. People who want to own certain breeds would have to meet certain criteria, ie background check, insurance, home ownership, etc. The purchase the license before they purchase a puppy, and the breeders of such dogs will have to mark down the license numbers of the persons buying their dogs. When they receive their license they will receive a list of requirments to owning such dogs with respect to containment, and what they need to do if the dog does attack a person or a dog, and what they need to do to rehome a dog, ie require a license.

Just saying BSL is unfair is not good enough. There has to be an alternative, some way to get these dogs away from the people likely to abuse, neglect, not train/socialize, or train them to be aggressive.

[Jessiewessie99]

Originally Posted by selzer

so?

To the its-not-a-pitbull-people: The legislation usually is written up that lists the different breeds that they lump in with pitties, and mixes thereof. Some of them say that if it resembles a pitbull, then it is not allowed or whatever. We can say there is no pit bull breed until the cows come home but it does not change the fact that bully breeds have an inordinate amount of serious injuries to their credit. And fighting over terminology isn't getting anyone anywhere.

Bully breed people have to come up with a solution to the problem. Right now their very popular dogs are in some very irresponsible hands and have cause very serious injuries to too many people.

I do not know what the answer is, but I would definitely restrict ownership to people who are likely to be responsible owners. Too all others, mandatory spay/neuter of existing dogs of these breeds, and then not allowing these dogs' ownership to be transferred to people without certain credentials.

Maybe people should have to purchase a dangerous dog license. People who want to own certain breeds would have to meet certain criteria, ie background check, insurance, home ownership, etc. The purchase the license before the purchase a puppy, and the breeders of such dogs will have to mark down the license numbers of the persons buying their dogs. When they receive their license they will receive a list of requirments to owning such dogs with respect to containment, and what they need to do if the dog does attack a person or a dog.

Just saying BSL is unfair is not good enough. There has to be an alternative, some way to get these dogs away from the people likely to abuse, neglect, not train/socialize, or train them to be aggressive.

You said "You can say that they are not people aggressive and are bred to not be people aggressive, but the fact of the matter is, there are many incidents of maulings, people mauled by pit bulls, sorry bully breeds. And the serious nature of the injuries sustained and reported often have a hefty price tag."

When pitbulls are not people aggressive, nor are they bred to be people aggressive. It is due to poor socialization, poor training, abuse and neglect. And also the reports are somtimes exaggerated. Also most are not pitbulls, people automatically assume it is a pitbull because its a dog attack. when people think dog attack they think pitbull.

[codmaster]

Jessie - sounds like you are FOR breed specific legislation? Is that true?

"Pit bulls" today "enjoy" the same noteriety that Dobes, GSD's, and Rotties have enjoyed in various periods in the past. Great popularity from the news media whenever the breed does anything bad.

BTW, Jessie do you really think that a pit bull is any worse than a Rottie. Which would you rather get bitten by? NIETHER! Of course.

Insurance companies look at statistics to determine which dogs are not worth insuring based on frequency and amounts paid out. They do not discriminate blindly - based on numbers! Some companies can interpret the hard data differently which is why some will insure GSD's and some will not. Their choice - they all look at the same empirical data.

[APBTLove]

You raise valid point, Selz, but using BSL on certain breeds does not help. The only ones who will follow the law are the ones who care enough about their dogs to do so. The others will just move on to another breed, I've seen it with my own eyes. A neighbor had American Bullies, they were unsocialized, nervy dogs. And they kept biting people, eventually AC took the dogs and they immediately got a Presa Canario, and are breeding it, along with their husky/shepherd.

The people who want their dogs to be mean, who allow them to get out and cause problems or to hurt people or other animals won't care for BSL, they'll keep their dogs until AC comes knocking, or they'll just get rid of them and move to another dog.

Which is why I say instead of attacking one breed at a time, have much harsher penalties for dog attacks.

When a bully breed truly attacks someone it's rough. Simply because they are powerful and tend to hold and shake like terriers instead of say, a GSD, who will generally bite several times. Most Bully breeds are powerful and agile, but so are many, many breeds... It just so happens that pit bull dogs outnumber most other dogs. When I go through petfinder to look up dogs in need of placing I sometimes have to pass entire pages of bully breeds.


There is a such a thing as a 'pit bull', it's the American PIT BULL Terrier, that's the only pit bull. The rest (American Bullies, American Staffordshire, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bulldogs, mixes ect.) are labeled 'pit bull' but are not. That's why in BSL it usually has a short list of what other breeds might be called a pit bull in the ban.


But it is not just bully breeds affected, and the fact is if you let BSL pass for bully breeds in one area, how long until it's your German Shepherds people get scared of and propose they add them to the ban list? Even if your dog gets grandfathered in, you will have to muzzle your dog in public, and many places make your dog wear a "Warning - vicious dog" collar in bright colors just because it's breed was affected by BSL.

I stick by saying there will be no helping the current dog problems with breed-specific targeting. Education, harsher fines and punishment for owners, laws for BYBs (for it's BYBs pumping out the unstable garbage dogs most people own that bite) and less chances given to a dog (You know, three reported bites and you're out).

[APBTLove]

Originally Posted by codmaster

Jessie - sounds like you are FOR breed specific legislation? Is that true?

"Pit bulls" today "enjoy" the same noteriety that Dobes, GSD's, and Rotties have enjoyed in various periods in the past. Great popularity from the news media whenever the breed does anything bad.

BTW, Jessie do you really think that a pit bull is any worse than a Rottie. Which would you rather get bitten by? NIETHER! Of course.

Insurance companies look at statistics to determine which dogs are not worth insuring based on frequency and amounts paid out. They do not discriminate blindly - based on numbers! Some companies can interpret the hard data differently which is why some will insure GSD's and some will not. Their choice - they all look at the same empirical data.

I am pretty sure Jess is against BSL...

I think we can thank the media for CREATING the breed's reputation. If a pit bull sneezes on an old lady, it's a story..

Just me, but I'd rather get bitten by a pit bull type lol Rotties bite pressure is usually more, and whereas I could play tug with and throw my 55 pound bulldog around, spin her in circles while she held on, playing tug with the rottie was ridiculous, she was stronger than me..