Breed Specific Legislation

[Smith]

American Staffordshire Terrier, Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, Neapolitan Mastiff, Spanish Mastiff, Dogue de Bordeaux, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Roman Fighting Dog, Chinese Fighting Dog, Bandog, Tosa Inu, Akbash, Briard, Beauceron, Bullmastiff, Chow Chows, Dalmations, Doberman, Komondor, Kuvasz, Maremma, Great Pyrenees, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Rottweiler, Tibetan Mastiff

First off Bull Terrier is bold because i own one, her name is daisy.



If you didnt already know in ontario right now the government is trying to ban pit bulls and anything that looks like or is built like a pit bull. I cant believe the ignorance of some people. There is no scientific proof that one breed is more dangerous than another. Its all a matter of there up-bringing.

Saying that these breeds are worse than others is like hitler saying that jews are a plague and are less of a person than any other race.

The Canadian Kennel Club:

· The Canadian Kennel Club supports dangerous and vicious dog legislation in order to provide the most appropriate protection for the general public and the innocent dog owner. We are opposed to breed-specific legislation in any form, anywhere in this country or internationally. It is both short-sighted and unacceptable, anywhere.

The Canada Safety Council:

· The Canada Safety Council does not recommend breed bans.

Canadian Veterinary Medical Association:

· The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) supports dangerous dog legislation provided that it does not refer to specific breeds.

The Centers for Disease Control:

· Breed-specific approaches to the control of dog bites do not address the issue that many breeds are involved in the problem and that most of the factors contributing to dog bites are related to the level of responsibility exercised by dog owners.

· Tethered dogs are more likely to bite than untethered dogs.

JAVMA (Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association):

· Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues.

· Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.

The American Kennel Club:

· The American Kennel Club strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be "dangerous" based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs.

I have met poodles that are worse than these dogs.

In the Netherlands, the breeds responsible for the most bites were Rottweiler (20 per cent), and Golden and Labrador Retriever (15 per cent). CHIRPP ranked the most common breeds causing a bite injury as German Shepherds, Cocker Spaniels, Rottweilers and Golden Retrievers.

Golden and Labrador Retrievers have a reputation for being friendly and good-natured. The high number of bites is because they are very common. The Dutch survey found that for Rottweilers and Bull Terriers, the chances of biting are seven and six times higher respectively than for other pedigree breeds.

What do you guys thing, is banning a specific breed the right thing to do?

[lynx]

Can we ban dangerous Canadians?

I've heard those Newfoundlanders can turn a little nasty at times.

[Virtualbody1234]

Can we ban dangerous Canadians?

[Smith]

lol!

[j2k4]

I would tend to agree with you, Canuck.

The dogs mentioned have historically been what could be called more aggressive breeds, but the reality is that, while they are certainly genetically predisposed to be physically suited to the role, their presenting disposition is a product of their upbringing and training.

There is a definite problem with many dog-owners, however.

Like you, I have had worse experiences with poodles (which were originally a hunting breed, I think), but would sooner punt a recalcitrant poodle out of the way than a pit-bull.

[ilw]

"There is no scientific proof that one breed is more dangerous than another"
errm weren't pitbulls bred purely to fight and to be specifically more dangerous than the dogs they were fighting?
& they're part terrier which means they get pissed off at the drop of a hat.


Simply by virtue of the fact that they are bigger, stronger and (when it comes to the crunch) more vicious than other dogs, this makes them inherently more dangerous to have around.

[ilw]

saw this and thought it nicely summarised the issue.

Most bites are not from an aggressive animal. Many are caused by small children pulling hair, ears and tails. Some dogs will tolerate it for a while, but if a parent is not around to tell the child to stop, the dog will bite. Never leave a child unsupervised with any pet, for the child's safety and the animal's.
...
Are some dogs more likely to bite than others? Not necessarily. As stated earlier, any animal can bite. Some dog breeds, however, do have the potential to do more damage when they bite.
According to a study done by the Humane Society of the United States, one third of deaths caused by dogs were attributed to pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, Siberian huskies and Alaskan malamutes. The rest of the deaths were attributed to other breeds and mixes.

Some of these are breeds that most people would not consider aggressive. Labrador retrievers, Great Danes, Saint Bernards, cocker spaniels, and even the little Yorkshire terrier have each chalked up at least one fatality.

[Biggles]

ilw

Total number of dogs would be useful too. I think it might suggest Pit Bulls are disposed towards biting in relation to their overall numbers.

However, as said above, the owner has a big part to play here. Some people are pre-disposed towards certain dogs and encourage them to be aggressive once they have them. It used to be German Shepherds but now it is Rottweilers and Pit Bulls - note the sudden leap in Rottweiler incidents and decline in German Shepherds.

[Snee]

In all fairness tho', a pitbull is built like a frikkin brick wall.

A buddy had one, and I'd rather be attacked by a mental cocker spaniel than bitten once by that dog.

It has been suggested that pitbulls are more prone to psychosis than other dogs, and that their ability to read body language and show it as well has been in part bred away.

This supposedly does make them dangerous since you can neither read them, nor can they read you.

Meaning that they might see aggression where it is not.


How much of this it is that has been proven I'm unsure of, and it sounds a bit strange that a combination of different breeds would produce these traits over and over.

At any rate it's pretty stupid to start suspecting other breeds of the same because of physical similarities.


Oh, and scientifically speaking the last other breed, or race if you will, of human beings were the neaderthals, and they are slightly extinct.

[ruthie]

Well, our dog is part pit, my son's dog is part pit, rhodesian ridgeback, etc. they are gentle dogs. I've also met nasty, aggresive ones. There are dogs that were bred for fighting, protection, herding, etc.
I think it mostly depends on how a dog is raised, and also respecting your dog's limitations. If you know the dog isn't particularly fond of children, don't put the dog in a stressful situation, and certainly don't put a child in said position.
i wouldn't tolerate a "biter".
I did have one dog I adopted..she was an Austrailian sheperd. she was full grown, and abused. She was a fear biter. Once she developed some trust, we figured out how to work with her. That included keeping her away from stressful situations..that is, if I wanted to keep her, which I did.
The bottom line is, it is the owners responsibility to take care of their dog and train it properly. If you can't do that, then don't have one.
By the way, i think those little dogs that are the size of footballs are much nastier and like to bite. One of those...well, I wouldn't want one.
Speaking of football...SUPERBOWL