Breed Specific Legislation

Quote:

---

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.
http://img190.exs.cx/img190/6002/daisy1wz.jpg


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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Can we ban dangerous Canadians?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Can we ban dangerous Canadians?

---

:01:

lol!

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.

"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.

saw this and thought it nicely summarised the issue.

Quote:

---

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.

---

http://img205.exs.cx/img205/1718/bites6br.png

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.

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.

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

I might add this too...some dogs are overbred, some dogs are purposrly bred for certain traits...for instance, taking two known aggresive pits and breeding them..for what purpose? dog fighting.
Course, I don't go for purebreeds anyway. Mutts are much nicer and less neurotic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruthie

I might add this too...some dogs are overbred, some dogs are purposrly bred for certain traits...for instance, taking two known aggresive pits and breeding them..for what purpose? dog fighting.
Course, I don't go for purebreeds anyway. Mutts are much nicer and less neurotic.

---

Too true, and what I meant by "geneticly-disposed"; certain breeds will, if inclined to attack, get more of that done by mistake then another will intentionally.

TheCanuck...

Are they trying to totally ban these dogs, or does the proposed ordinance set up hard-to-comply with restrictions on the dog and owners? Such as tethering, fencing and insurace restrictions?

I live in an area with a high influx of immigrants and it became a common perception that these immigrants actually took pride in the aggressiveness of their pit bulls, and encouraged them to be aggressive. After numerous complaints from neighbors who were concerned and numerous attacks by these dogs, a control ordinance was passed.

At the time, I oversaw compliance of my City's ordinances, and this one was a tough one. I felt the restrictions possibly made the dogs even more aggressive, and put real financial hurdles on the owners in order to keep their family dogs.

I remember a newly arrived family with a pit bull. The woman assured me their dog had never been aggressive, was great with the children in their family and didn't have an aggressive bone in its body. I had to tell her that I understood that, but we had this ordinance and restrictions would have to be met.

These restrictions involved tethering and leashing the dogs..........type of chain they must be kept on when outside........fencing in the yard they were kept in must be so tall, and so many inches into the ground. Even when the dog was allowed the run of the home, there had to be certain restrictions on the locks and strength of a screen door to inhibit their access to the outside. The owner also had to carry a $300,000.00 liability insurance on the dog. As I said earlier, these restrictions make it almost impossible to keep such a dog.

Anyway, such restrictions could not be met overnight, so I gave the family the usual two or three days to at least show us they were working toward compliance, but did tell them they would have to keep the dog on a chain while outside during this time.

The next afternoon a little neighborhood girl was attacked by this newly arrived dog and had to have a horrific amount of stitches to her face and neck area due to the attack. There were witnesses to the event. The dog broke its chain and went after the child without any provocation. The dog's owners were shocked, as the dog had never shown any of this aggessiveness.

Could this same situation happen with any breed of dog? Probably. But it was a pit bull and gave the City Council further justification for their ordinance.

Well, i wouldn't muzzle my dog..then again, I don't take him out much. here, when he wants to go out, we can let him run. he comes right back, and if i see a neighbor wants to let their dog out, I bring him in, or snap on his leash. I'm sure if our dog thought I was in "troublr", he would bite, as i hear in his history, he does have that side to him. He's about 9 or 10, and we've only had him a few years.
The problem with pits is..they lock on, and you have to use something to open their jaws...no fun..i've been around pits that got into a fight and had to be seperated that way. I don't like aggresive dogs, period..whatever the breed.
yup, give me a mutt. they can be worked with much better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

I couldn't get stats on breeds, but as you say to keep their numbers/deaths ratio in line with other dogs, I'm guessing that approximately a third/quarter of all the dogs in the us would have to be pitbulls and i don't think thats accurate. I would suggest that the thing most likely to throw off those stats is people training their dog to be vicious and choosing pitbulls because they are the most territorial and dangerous.

I think everyone would agree that there must be rules on how dangerous animals (eg lions, snakes scorpions etc) should be kept, so that people nearby are safe. The legislation as i see it is simply redefining what is meant by dangerous to include certain large and powerful breeds of dog.

Well, I see the analogy police have made an arrest.

And Biggles has rightly pointed out the danger of charts and statistics in general. Always ask yourself what it is NOT telling you.

How many of each breed Biggles pointed out, but just as important is # of exposures to that breed.

I don't need to turn scientific community to have them tell me that different breeds have different traits, that is obvious. Even dogs in loving homes have a threshold of tolerance.

That is why golden retrievers are so sought after, they tend to walk away from hair pulling children. I would suspect that the children attacked by the "docile" breeds were left alone with these dogs repeatedly and the parents never gave it a second thought. Whereas with pitbulls, most parents would make it a point to be sure little Billy is no where near that dog. Every now and then a wee one will grab a sensitive appendage of a golden and get bitten, and that is where the numbers of attacks come from.

What people tend to forget is that nice dogs are not necessarily nice to strangers.

My Cairn Terrier bit me once, on the shoe so I felt no pain, because I was being a prick and deserved it. But that dog would sit at the front window and bark and snarl at anyone on our property. Sometimes we would be on the front lawn and a jogger would pass by and the combination of property violation and something running would drive my sweet dog mad. She would chase after the jogger who would become quite distressed. It was really rather comical as my dog was kept with very short hair and was quite fat. It looked like the jogger was being attacked by a piglet. I would have trouble running after her because I would be laughing so hard. Anyway, she never bit anyone, just made lots of noise.

I had a similar incident when hiking a trail with a friend. The sky opened up and we were stuck in the middle of a horrible thunderstorm, lightening everywhere. As we ran for shelter we lost the path. We found ourselves on someback road, and there were 2 medium sized dogs waiting for us by their house. These dogs were completely unrestrained, no fence, and no owner in sight.

Let me ask you people a question. Do you really think breeds don't have traits?

If those dogs had been Doberman Pincers or Pit Bulls, I wonder what story I would tell. Had they been Golden Retrievers, I would have probably just called them over.

In this case they were mutts. The dominant one came after us as we were on his property, the smaller one kept back barking "Yeah, what he said". I told my friend to not alter his path and not to run. We just ignored them and walked down the road. Once off their property their demeanor changed and about 2 miles later they we just walking with us out for the fun of it. Then a pickup truck pulls past and stops. The dogs run and jump in the back and they drive away. Friggin barsteward could have given is a lift.

Anyway, as perspective, when I was little, my dog would walk with me to school in the morning. Then it would have free reign of the entire neighborhood and eventually return home for dinner. Free roaming dogs are a thing of the past.

I live in Ontario as well, and I'm totally baffled by the proposed laws. The laws would make it illegal to own the breeds of dogs stated by the Canuk.

I agree 100% with dangerous dog legislation - if a dog is vicious, it should be put down, and the owners held responsible for its actions. I also agree with leash and muzzle laws - for ALL breeds of dogs.

I have owned one of the dogs on that list, a rottweiler. She was neither mean nor viscious. My oldest son could climb on my rottweiler and she would submit to him. I never once hit the dog, apart from a little tap on her butt once or twice to get her attention. I needed only to raise my voice and she would quiver. She incidentally outweighed me and could have ripped my arm off if she'd wanted to, the point is, she didn't want to. My parents used to own a black lab - who bit everyone, but I don't see labs on that list?

I hear stories about attacks all the time. My brother was nearly killed by a german shepard. Does this mean I think all shepards are vicious? Not in the slightest. I've met pitbulls that are among the most well behaved dogs I've seen. It has everything to do with proper breeding (reputable breeders) and proper training. If you're aggressive with your dog, your dog will be aggressive with you. Hell I don't see poodles on that list either, but I've seen many of them who are vicious little buggers and bite continuously.

It goes to what is popular at a specific time - many dog owners want a dog because that breed is the "in thing" at a particular time. When I got my Rottie, I knew almost no one that had one, and had seen very little of the breed. I made the decision on what dog I wanted, based on a lot of reading, and meeting a lot of breeders. Now, I see rottweilers everywhere. The problem is that not all dog owners are interested in putting in the time and effort needed to raise a puppy properly or paying decent bucks to get the dog from a reputable breeder. They just think the breed is cool. So you end up with a large number of dogs whose breeding is unknown, and who aren't properly trained. Expensive or not, getting a puppy from a reputable breeder, you can see what the parents are like, and you know that the dog has not been bred for violence. Getting a puppy from the pet store or an ad in the newspaper - you have absolutely no idea what you're getting, and you take a chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

TheCanuck...

Are they trying to totally ban these dogs, or does the proposed ordinance set up hard-to-comply with restrictions on the dog and owners? Such as tethering, fencing and insurace restrictions?

I live in an area with a high influx of immigrants and it became a common perception that these immigrants actually took pride in the aggressiveness of their pit bulls, and encouraged them to be aggressive. After numerous complaints from neighbors who were concerned and numerous attacks by these dogs, a control ordinance was passed.

At the time, I oversaw compliance of my City's ordinances, and this one was a tough one. I felt the restrictions possibly made the dogs even more aggressive, and put real financial hurdles on the owners in order to keep their family dogs.

I remember a newly arrived family with a pit bull. The woman assured me their dog had never been aggressive, was great with the children in their family and didn't have an aggressive bone in its body. I had to tell her that I understood that, but we had this ordinance and restrictions would have to be met.

These restrictions involved tethering and leashing the dogs..........type of chain they must be kept on when outside........fencing in the yard they were kept in must be so tall, and so many inches into the ground. Even when the dog was allowed the run of the home, there had to be certain restrictions on the locks and strength of a screen door to inhibit their access to the outside. The owner also had to carry a $300,000.00 liability insurance on the dog. As I said earlier, these restrictions make it almost impossible to keep such a dog.

Anyway, such restrictions could not be met overnight, so I gave the family the usual two or three days to at least show us they were working toward compliance, but did tell them they would have to keep the dog on a chain while outside during this time.

The next afternoon a little neighborhood girl was attacked by this newly arrived dog and had to have a horrific amount of stitches to her face and neck area due to the attack. There were witnesses to the event. The dog broke its chain and went after the child without any provocation. The dog's owners were shocked, as the dog had never shown any of this aggessiveness.

Could this same situation happen with any breed of dog? Probably. But it was a pit bull and gave the City Council further justification for their ordinance.

---

They are banning them so that after this generation dies you cant own them in ontario, you can keep the one you have now, but you can no longer breed them :(

I can only tell you that I have never even met a pit bull. But I can also tell you I have heard too many pit bull owners that speak well of their dogs to believe that aggressiveness is a trait that runs through all of these dogs.

Banning future generations sounds like a tracking nightmare to me.

They have apparently decided that all of these dogs are dangerous. By their ban they are stating this, that they think they are dangerous. And maybe they feel they are being sensitive to the current dogs and dog owners by doing it this way, I don't really know.

I know in my City if this type of a future ban was suggested, our City Attorney would have stopped it. The reason being, after this ban is put into effect, say one existing pit bull would attack someone............that person could turn around and sue the City claiming that by their ordinance/ban, they believed that this could happen and did nothing to prevent it from happening currently.

We had many pit bull owners that started housing their dogs right outside of the City Limits.

I cannot see the appeal of owning a dog that is not only more agressive by nature (even if nurture can temper that) than many other breeds, but is also imo...butt ugly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Not all butts are ugly tho'.

---

Too true; sounds like a subject for a new thread.

Good to see you, sir.;)

Bull terriers where bread to do the same thing as pit bulls, but over the many years good breaders have tried to breed the agressiveness out of them, and im sure the same thing is going on with pitbulls. Any good breader who owns one because they love the breed, and not for fighting will drill you b4 they sell one to you.

The same thing happend to me, they sat us down and drilled us with questons b4 they sold us one. LOTS of breeders will not sell there dogs if they feel this person is buying one for the wrong reason.

Yes pit bulls where made for fighting, but that dosnt mean there all bad, and therefore shouldnt be banned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheCanuk

Bull terriers where bread to do the same thing as pit bulls, but over the many years good breaders have tried to breed the agressiveness out of them,

---

:lol: I don't normally comment on peoples spelling, but this was just too bunny
and its not breaders its bakers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

:lol: I don't normally comment on peoples spelling, but this was just too bunny
and its not breaders its bakers

---

You are easily the most picky person on this entire board.

Well done, that man.:)