Can a law that bans or restricts ownership of specific breeds of dogs—called a "breed-specific law"

Question

—protect the members of your community from dog attacks?

Answer 1

No...Only you could protect the community from dog attacks is to ban dogs entirely.

Answer 2

NO!! BSL is a load of crap. "Punish the deed, not the breed." Many "so-called" pit bull attacks aren't even close to being an actual pit bull, people just automatically say that's what it was. ANY dog can be dangerous, especially if running loose in a pack situation which I can imagine is the cause of many dog attacks. I've been chased by a pack of dogs and not one was even remotely similar to a pit or any of the "banned" breeds. If they want to ban biting dogs, every breed would have to be banned, especially the little toy breeds because they are the most likely to bite in my experience(large 8 doctor vet clinic). In contrast, all but maybe one of the pit bulls I have dealt with are great. Check out the American Temperament Testing Society http://www.atts.org/statistics.html and look at the breeds(ones that would fall under BSL) that have scored higher than many others.

Fight against BSL!

Answer 3

No, A ban on a breed is pointless. The irresponsible/abusive people who's dog attack others be it people or dogs are just that, irresonsible. They dont care about any laws and if you take one dog away they'll just get another one because they obviously didnt care enough to follow the law in the first place. Also, just like with gun bans, when you restric something it's only criminals who have that something anyway. So those people will still have these dogs because they have no intention of following the law anyway. It's not fair for the RESPONSIBLE owners who love their breed to not be able to own their choice of dog just because a bunch of idiots arent being held responsible for their actions. If either of my dogs ATTACKED someone unprovoked (breaking into my house or attacking me is a whole nother story!) I would have them quarintined and then put down. I love my dogs but if they were that unstable (which they absolutely arent thank god) i wouldnt want them to be around me or anyone else. I know enough to not put a anyone in danger because i love my dogs. The sad thing is that people that own most of those banned breeds have them for a reason and that reason usually is about having a vicious dog. Not because the breed is vicious, you have to make a dog vicious, but because certain types of dogs can do much more damage than a vicious chihuahua. And i've seen many more unstable, vicious little dogs than the ones they keep banning. It sucks, I hate stupid people and their stupid actions that are ruining it for all of us that love our dogs and know enough to be responsible for our dogs.

Answer 4

In my opinion no.. ANY dog can attack.. ban dog fighting, ban the training of dogs for the purpose of fighting/or attacking.. including the police dogs.. Make it easier for people to get dog training.. (I'm sorry, but some people can take care of the food, vet bills etc.. but $90 is a bit much for a group training session which in my experience may not help anyway) The people who are creating the aggressive dogs don't give a damn about the breed specific laws.. they have them anyway.. In this town it is flat out illegal to own more than one supposed pitt.. (meaning anything that looks vaguely similar to because they are too ignorant to do their homework http://www.understand-a-bull.com).. does that stop the people that shouldn't have them?.. hell no. I have driven through certain neighborhoods and WATCHED people with a pack of them.. (they were obviously not trained fighters since they were together.. this is just to point out that the law means nothing)

http://www.standunited.ca/sourcesforreading/regardlessofbreed.html
Take a look through these dog bite stats.. and the most amazing part to me?.. How many of these attacks were from POLICE DOGS!.. speaking of training to be violent.. (or in more recent news I suppose the neglect/abuse factor as found recently when a police dog DIED when left in a police car in 100+ heat.. while the human part of the team "did other things")

Answer 5

I dont think so. I dont have a pitbull and am not really a fan of these dogs,however, I do think they have been unfairly targeted as " villans".

Why dont law makers go after the owners instead of the dogs? Its not the dogs that put themselves in these situations, its the ignorant owners.

Coming from the South I can tell you that a lot of folks who have pitbulls around here are just dumb-I'm not trying to be mean, but its a fact- many of these people are beyond ignorant and can hardly be trusted with their own children, let alone a dog breed that requires a stable environment.

I have several friends who have pitbulls who really work hard to keep their dog under control,just as you have to with any dog.It is true that the so called bully breeds can be more agressive,but I bet if I abused my rat terrier to such an extent as these morons abuse these pit bulls, well,she would attack too.

Answer 6

No....only responsible owners can do that. Any breed of dog can and will attack if they aren't raised, trained and socialized correctly. The only difference is how much damage are you talking about. A large dog will cause more damage than a smaller dog, but a smaller dog can still attack. From personal experience, many smaller dogs get away with a lot because people think it's "cute" when it's really EXTREMELY bad behavior that large dogs, raised by responsible people, simply would never be allowed to do.

Answer 7

According to experts, the answer is no.

Why? Popular breeds come and go. When ownership of one breed of dog is outlawed, those who want a dangerous dog simply turn to another breed. The Doberman pinscher—known as the dangerous dog breed of the 1970s—was replaced in popularity by the pit bull in the ’80s and the rottweiler in the ’90s. Breed-specific laws require that someone be able to prove that a specific dog is a member, or a mix, of that breed—not always an easy task. Boxers and bulldogs, for instance, may be mistaken for pit bulls. Any medium-large sized black and tan dog with a long tail may be mistakenly labeled as a German shepherd. Breed-specific legislation doesn’t acknowledge the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous. The law should protect your community from any such dog. Breed-specific laws are difficult, costly, and sometimes impossible to enforce. It’s one thing to require that every rottweiler in your community be muzzled whenever outside of the home; it’s another to fund and support adequate animal control staff to ensure that this happens. In 1987 the Cincinnati City Council banned all pit bulls within the city after a series of severe maulings and one human fatality involving the dogs. The ban was passed even though the state of Ohio and the city of Cincinnati already had statutes that allowed authorities to seize any dog known to have injured or killed a person or another dog. Nearly ten years later, the council’s law committee recommended that the ban be repealed, saying that it was unnecessary. The council recommended that pit bulls be handled like any other dogs and that owners be prosecuted only when the dogs were unrestrained or exhibited dangerous behavior. It made this recommendation in part due to the cost of enforcement. Confiscated dogs spent up to five months at the city’s contracted shelter while the cases against the dogs’ owners were being litigated. Many of the confiscated dogs were family companions with no history of aggression. Legislation that restricts breeds may actually create a population of dangerous dogs within your community. When a community imposes strict regulations on a specific breed of dog, owners of those dogs may end up chaining or caging the dogs for long periods of time. Dogs so chained or caged can be so desperate for activity that they become uncontrollable should they escape. Restricted dogs often receive little veterinary care because it is difficult for their owners to transport them to a veterinary facility without violating restrictions. Most importantly, restricted dogs who don’t get to experience normal opportunities for socialization and training will undoubtedly act in an unpredictable fashion when exposed to the real world

Answer 8

I once had an elderly lady for a friend. She had a wonderful little dog. A mix of some sort. She had the dog trained well and it behaved very well. Learn here https://tr.im/Wxmdm

She kept an uncovered candy dish on her coffee table with candy in it. The dog was forbidden to eat the candy. When she was in the room observing the dog he did not even appear to notice the candy. One day while she was in her dinning room she happened to look in a mirror and could see her dog in the living room. He did not know he was being watched. For several minutes he was sitting in front of the candy bowl staring at the candy. Finally he reached in and took one. He placed it on the table and stared at it, he woofed at it. He stared some more, licked his chops and PUT IT BACK in the bowl and walked away. Did he want the candy, oh yeah. Did he eat it? Nope. They can be trained that well but most, I'll admit, are not trained that well. When I was a young boy, maybe 5 years old. We had a german shepherd. He was very well trained also. My mom could leave food unattended on the table, no problem. She would open the oven door and set a pan roast beef or roast chicken on the door to cool. No problem. He would not touch it, watched or not. But butter? Whole other story. You leave a stick of butter anywhere he could reach and it was gone. He was a large shepherd so there were not many places he could not reach. Really, I think the number of dogs trained to the point they will leave food alone when not being supervised is very small indeed.
.
Now if we are talking obedience training, not food grubbing, that is a different story. Way back when I was first learning obedience training one of the final exercises was to put our dogs in a down/stay and not only leave the room but leave the building for 15 minutes. The only person that stayed was our trainer, not the owners. Most of the dogs in my class did not break their stay, which would be an automatic fail. I'm happy to report my dog was one of the ones that passed.

Answer 9

No, this doesn't prevent dog bites. Responsible ownership & teaching small children to respect dogs prevents bites. Things like BSL are crap & it won't stop with pitbulls,rotties, ect... If we allow this no one will be able to own a dog. The only place you'll even be able to see a dog is at the zoo.Italy has BSL , it started with 13 breeds and now its about 90. Including the Boarder Collie & Corgi. Punish the deed not the breed !

Answer 10

The reason dogs attack was because of abuse from the owner but sometimes even those can be the sweetest dogs. There was a story on the news today about a dog whose owner STABBED her in the head! Now tell me if that is fair to a poor animal who did nothing and was still just as gentle after that happened to her!

Answer 11

No, because any breed can bite. Some with good reason, and some unprovoked. I did a study locally once. You know what the number one breed was as far as bites? Poodles and their mixes! Punish the deed, NOT the breed! The only dog that actually got enough teeth in me to leave a mark was a bloodhound I was trimming the nails of.

ADDED to Polkgrl: Yes, we know they can and do make the laws, but I think the question was more like, "Do they do any good?" :-)