German shepherds, other breeds banned from dog event

[ChristenHolden]

I remember that dog gone. A lot of people were like pitbulls that pitbulls this. And a lot of them wanted to ban pits from EVERY were. Now that there comming for our GSDs I wonder what they think about it now.

[guitarest]

According to the AKC; a recent report published has the Winerdog (Daughtson, sp error) as the most dangerous dog within the AKC ranks when it comes to biting people. The GSD was near the 20th position.

[Jax08]

This is a private business. So they can ban anything they want. Is it right? No. Is it based on some premise that we aren't aware of? Maybe.

Should the person sue and get his money back? Absolutely! They should have been upfront if they didn't want certain breeds at the park.

This is not a California wide breed ban so the premise of comparing the ban to people isn't quite legit. If a private business banned people based on race then there would be a huge lawsuit based on civil rights.

[chicagojosh]

guitarest, are you sure you don't mean most likely to bite? i know the dachunds are about #1 on most likely to attack, but not most dangerous.

[Chicagocanine]

Originally Posted by DogGone

Many months ago I warned people on this message board that there was a growing discrimination against dogs like GSD’s and that we should defend the rights of the owners of breeds like pit bulls that don’t fight, breed or encourage their dogs to be aggressive. We should try to filter out bad people and bad dogs; not an entire breed. Now one breed is more and more becoming several breeds and more widespread and more extreme; just as I predicted. Many here scoffed at what I said.

I've been saying that for years-- all dog owners should fight against BSL, because your breed could be next!

Originally Posted by guitarest

According to the AKC; a recent report published has the Winerdog (Daughtson, sp error)

It's Dachshund.

[Kayla's Dad]

Originally Posted by Jax08

This is a private business. So they can ban anything they want. Is it right? No. Is it based on some premise that we aren't aware of? Maybe.

Should the person sue and get his money back? Absolutely! They should have been upfront if they didn't want certain breeds at the park.

This is not a California wide breed ban so the premise of comparing the ban to people isn't quite legit. If a private business banned people based on race then there would be a huge lawsuit based on civil rights.

A private (very rich) business that does not like bad publicity. And the actual event hasn't happen yet. Wouldn't sue but would try to turn it into a media headache for them this week-cheaper than lawyers and he'll probably get more than his money worth. "7 on your side" anyone? Get them to explain why they couldn't come right out and explain the ban instead of trying other excuses first. Get them to explain why they can not put out the complete list of "10-15" breeds that are not allowed and why they don't tell people before they take their money. Get them to explain why other teams have these dog days without these bans-what is their problem? (Mention the A's and Giants -nothing like throwing their rivals in their face!) Any of the police K9 unit patrol on game day with gsds?

And since I'm a Bay Area sports fan -- how about a jersey burning bonfire with all the doggy jerseys the day of the event. Any Chargers jerseys should be welcomed as well.

[FredD]

[selzer]

Originally Posted by guitarest

According to the AKC; a recent report published has the Winerdog (Daughtson, sp error) as the most dangerous dog within the AKC ranks when it comes to biting people. The GSD was near the 20th position.

Did they say the most dangerous or most likely to bite?

Because a bite is a bite, yes and no. Some bites require antibiotics and a stitch or two and some require reconstructive surgery.

[AgileGSD]

Originally Posted by selzer

Did they say the most dangerous or most likely to bite?

Because a bite is a bite, yes and no. Some bites require antibiotics and a stitch or two and some require reconstructive surgery.

And honestly, trying to protect "your" breed by pointing the finger at other breeds is not really helping the issue.

I have to wonder if this issue has something to do with the stadium's insurance company?

[selzer]

Maybe it has to do with space and limiting the number of canines at the event. I mean, if you remove pitties, rotties, and sheps, the number of dogs go way down. Dogs needing a lot of room go way down, and dogs likely to get into a major scrap go way down in number too.

If the stadium BELIEVED that if there was a problem the victim would only go after the offending dog, maybe they could be a little more free. But they have to show that they were not grossly negligent. So if people in general wouldn't sue every time they got a scratch, or fell down because they saw a dog, maybe they would not ban the more interesting breeds. And of course, people WILL sue more than just the offending pet's owners, they will sue the owner of the stadium for allowing an event that included dogs of all shapes and sizes and breeds.

I hate to say this, but what a silly thing to want to do with your dog. Taking a dog to the kids' ball game is one thing. Taking a dog to the stadium where there are 50k people, and possibly a number of dogs, and it costs a huge amount, and you will have to be constantly worried about what your dog is seeing and smelling instead of watching the game. I dunno, I think it is silly to take a dog to a professional ball game.