Should certain breeds of dog be banned?

Question

Pit Bulls, Rotties, Boxers, Cane Carso, Mastiff, ETC.

This is my topic question for my Senior Project. I want other peoples opinions. This is actually geared towards EVERY BREED of dog. I love all dogs and think NO BREED OF DOG SHOULD BE BANNED.

Answer 1

No because if people think it will stop with the breeds you mentioned, it won't. In fact there are bored overpaid officials making lists of what dogs to consider dangerous including, so far, German Shepherds, Dobermans, Rottweilers, Akitas, Huskies, Mastiffs, Great Danes, St. Bernards, Chows, etc.
People really need to wake up, in Italy they started BSL and they now have 92 breeds of dog on the dangerous dog list.

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/Locations/Italy/Italy.htm

Most are large dogs but small dogs such as Schipperkes are
included. Where do all those in favor of a pit bull ban think BSL is headed? It is headed in the direction of ending all dog ownership, the next thing you know we will only be able to view dogs in the zoo with all the other wild animals.

BSL does not work and parts of those laws are unconstitutional. People need to take action such as petitions and writing letters. They need to refuse to give up their dogs and fight to keep them in court.

Answer 2

No I don't think they should. Pit bulls are still banned in Britain, but you can still find them here - sadly that means that anyone who has one is deliberately breaking the law, and so probably not the kind of person to raise a dog in a responsible way. This means their Pit Bull will probably have a lousy temperament - and everyone who meets it ends up thinking all pits are like this. FOR SHAME!

As for Rotties and mastiffs, my God they are wonderful dogs! I know many heavenly ones, the idea that they should not be allowed because of the way some people mistreat their dogs is horrific.

And Boxers - BOXERS? Why are they on the list, they must be one of the sweetest dog breeds around! Far less likely to be aggressive than a labrador or collie. Yup that's right - the majority of dogs with behaviour problems that I meet are labs or collies I would say. Can't comment on Cane Corso's really - I've only ever known of one. It just happens to be the most aggressive dog known to my practice, but that doesn't mean I'm going to assume all Corsos are like that.

It really is true that you can't judge a whole breed - it really is down to the owner. Yes, breeds all have inherant traits and tendencies, but this just means they need to be kept in the right conditions. You should never leave ANY dog alone with a child, not even a chihuahua (especially not a chihuahua actually!).

I just don't think the Dangerous Dogs Act has done anything at all, except make some people think it's really cool to own one of those breeds of dog and mistreat it into being dangerous. Talk about a vicious circle.

Chalice

Answer 3

The breeds have been banned because of the fact a on a similar time as in the past gangs used to reproduce dogs as look after dogs and struggling with dogs and easily to cause them to seem ferocious as a assertion. those breeds have been given a bad call because of the fact of those gangs who knowledgeable them to combat. The form of assaults from the breeds went up so the government made a breed ban. So it is authentic that aggression has been bred into them yet breeders now would be working no longer straight forward to reproduce it back out of them so we merely might desire to offer them a gamble. With the breed ban nonetheless in place the banned breeds will in all risk purely be owned by using criminals or people who do no longer understand that they are that breed so that they are going to the two be badly knowledgeable or the owner won't understand what form of coaching the dogs desires. Now those breeds are not misused as lots and can properly be good pets yet they are actually not good for green proprietors! The ban in all risk nonetheless will on no account be lifted for a protracted time because of the fact human beings nonetheless see them as risky dogs even nevertheless maximum now are properly-knowledgeable and advantageous, friendly dogs.

Answer 4

NO! And here's the short version, included are excerpts from a report I did on Breed Specific Legislation last fall:

It doesn't matter what breed the dog is, ALL dogs can bite! The breeds that are usually targeted for breed banning are targeted because they are larger dogs and when they do bite they can cause more damage than a small dog. However, a small dog is equally capable of killing a very young child. Also, dog bites and dog attacks are almost impossible to keep track of. There is no single authority to report dog bites to, so there is no single agency keeping track of how many dog bites are reported. Even if there were, many dog bites are never reported if they don't break the skin or if they don't require medical treatment (ie stitches and/or antibiotics).

"A study done on the breeds of dogs involved in fatal attacks between 1979 and 1998 found that no less than 21 recognized breeds, including Cocker Spaniels, West Highland White Terriers, Dachshunds, and even a Yorkshire Terrier had been involved in human deaths since 1975. In fact, unspecified mixed breed dogs were responsible for 5% of the deaths, a mere 2% less than the third most commonly involved purebred (Sacks et al. 837)." "Of the estimated 4.7 million annual dog bites only 800,000, approximately 20%, require some sort of medical attention and only about a dozen, approximately three ten thousandths of one percent [0.003%], are fatal (Nolen 760)."

Second, dog bites and attacks are not a breed specific problem. There have never been any studies to prove that dog bite incidents have decreased in areas where certain breeds have been banned as a result of the ban.
"Advocates [of BSL] often ignore the fact that in areas where BSL has been enacted there has been little to no effect on the number of dog bites. A study by the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Department of Accident and Emergency, found that banning certain breeds, including the American Pit Bull Terrier, in the United Kingdom ultimately had no effect on the number of dog bites reported. In the Netherlands a decrease in the number of dog bites during the years when pit bulls were banned was noted, but it was noted that the reduction in bites was a result of education and not the ban itself (Phillips)."

Breed bans punish responsible owners and result in many dogs being turned in to local shelters for euthanazia or worse dumped on some back country road. I personally strongly object to my two loving and very well trained dogs, whom I have spent hours working with to ensure that they are not likely to ever be involved in a bite incident, being taken away simply because some idiot who doesn't even live in the same county is afraid of German Shepherds. It doesn't do anything to make the irrisponsible owners who are responsible for most bite incidents take responsibility for their own actions. If the breed they weren't taking care of properly gets banned they just dump their dog and get a new breed...and make all of the same mistakes that lead to people getting bitten in the first place

And finally, once you open the door to BSL, the list keeps growing. First it's just the pit bulls, rotties, boxers, german shepherds, and akitas. Then there are still vicious dog attacks that the media makes a spectacle of and a few more breeds are added. Where does it stop? Italy started banning certain breeds of dogs and started with a relatively short list of 13 breeds. As of 2003 they were up to 40 breeds that are totally banned and 97 "dangerous" breeds, including Welsh Corgis and Border collies. The breeds considered dangerous or threatening by the Italian government must be muzzled and leashed while in public and minors, "delinquents," and criminals are prohibited from owning a dog of a "dangerous" breed.

Answer 5

No, not at all. Most of these dogs are very loving. I have a 4 year old rottweiler, and a 4 yr old daughter. They grew up together and could never be separated. Short story really fast well 2 actually. It was my daughter's first day in the walker when she was younger, and me being absent minded could have caused her serious injury. We had steps leading to the basement from the kitchen. My daughter took off like a bat out of heck through the kitchen, I took off running towards her as did the dog. Mysti (our rott) got to her before I did and put her 2 front paws in the base of the walker just as the 2 front wheels went over the edge of the step. I had the gate right there, and totally forgot to set it up. Next, we were moving just this past summer, I had no idea there was a bee's nest in the bottom of our screen door. I guess our rott had seen or heard the bees coming out and my daughter was there holding the door open. Mysti ran over there and started biting and swatting at the bees with her right front paw. She was stung in her bottom "lip" and between her 3'rd and 4'th "toes" giving my daughter time to get out of dodge. I think that the people who train those breeds of dogs to be grossly mean should be the ones put down. I apologize for the harshness.

Answer 6

It is more about upbringing than it is about breed.. ban the bad owners from getting dogs they can't properly take care of.
There may be some dogs out there that are just naturally born mean.. but I have a hard time believing that any puppy that gets positive love and attention from the beginning can possibly stay that way through life.. And it is certainly not breed specific.

Answer 7

No, they shouldn't.

Dogs are the result of two things - their breeding and their environment.

Breeding does play a large role in a dogs' temperament because some traits are genetic and can be bred into a dog - weak nerves, for example, can be bred into a dog and are often the cause of dogs who are fear biters. People might see these dogs as "aggressive", but in fact the dogs are frightened and their only "out" from a scary situation is often biting.

The environment in which a dog is raised and lives with its owners plays an equally large role. Any dog can become aggressive if he is treated badly, or chained out with no human contact or socialization around people and dogs. It's important that dogs are properly socialized, even if they are going to be used as "guard" dogs - their natural instinct to protect their family is not diminished by proper socialization and allowing them around people and pets when they are young.

The problem is that a lot of the dogs you've named above are "tough looking" dogs and many people who get them don't get them so much for pets, but as a status symbol. "Look at me and my big mean Rottweiler!" They're usually the kind of people who know little about a dog's needs, nor do they care - all they care about is that their dogs are mean looking and scary.

Banning a breed because of the idiots who own them is doing a great disservice to responsible breeders who only breed dogs with good and stable temperaments; and it's doing a disservice to the owners of dogs who are knowledgeable, and socialize and train their animals.

I have a German Shepherd who is now working as a therapy dog, but you would not believe how often I get people saying things like, "I heard Shepherds are MEAN" or "be careful, that's one of those police dogs!" or "I heard they turn on you!"

Answer 8

In the UK there are only four banned breeds

* the Pit Bull Terrier
* the Japanese tosa
* the Dogo Argentino
* the Fila Brasileiro

Answer 9

So...exactly why is the mastiff grouped in with those other breeds?

And, NO breeds should not be banned. I do believe that would be an insult to our personal rights.

Answer 10

No the reason these dogs become aggressive is because of their owners. Most of these dogs who end up attacking people are results of harsh mal-nourishment or abuse. I have two pit bulls who get along fine and have never hurt anyone or anything. The secret is all in the training. One of my dogs was abused to before we got her but if you train them right they are no harm and it is not fair to ban them because of their owners.