Breed bans are good or stupid?

Question

Hey, people are saying tha pit bulls are illegal, obviously they live in one of the few areas where criminals have latched onto this breed for their illegal activities. Anyone out there understand that banning pit bulls only keep the dogs in the hands of criminals, who do not care about laws? In Denver, they are seizing dogs from responsible owners, dogs who have never shown any aggression at all, while the criminals keep on fighting them and training them to attack humans! The ASPCA and literally every dog educated person opposes this! Do you really think that the sort of person who uses dogs as weapons cares about the law or would license their dogs? DUH! Pit bulls in the hands of good owners are wonderful pets, I have worked with them for years and never had a problem, other than rehabilitating dogs that were abused! It is the people who make vicious dogs, not the color of the dog, the shape, or any other thing. It would stop a lot more dog attacks to ban criminals from owning dogs!

Answer 1

Banning the breed is stupid. Its not the dogs that are bad its the people raising them. Pit bulls do make good fight dogs, no doubt. However they should NOT be fought. Its like the old adage, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Its the same way with dogs. You can pretty much train a dog to do ANYTHING!!!! So why waste the time and money to teach em to fight? No only is it illegal, its cruel and down right disgusting. WHen I was married , my wife was in the Air Force. She got reassigned to RAF Lakenheath in England. Because our dog was PART pit we could not take her with us. I think that is THE stupidest policy ever. SO all we as Americans need to do is ban together. Petitions work WONDERS!!!!! Write your COngressman, write anyone in power you can think of. IT AINT THE DOGS, ITS THE OWNERS!!!!

Answer 2

Banning Pit Bulls would be like banning cars because people get killed in car accidents! Who's responsible, the car or the driver/manufacturer? Any car can be deadly in the wrong hands or if built with defective parts. Same thing with dogs... Any dog. Pit Bulls are no more responsible for the way they are bred, raised and trained, than cars are responsible for the way they are designed, built and driven.

Simply put, the best argument against breed bans is that they are costly and ineffective. Breed bans are often a knee-jerk reaction from politicians who want to say they are "doing something", after a highly publicized dog attack (of any breed). This is a useless exercise.

Criminals habitually break laws, so having an "illegal breed" may indeed be attractive to them and might make them want to breed and sell more "illegal dogs". If their dog is confiscated and killed, they really don't care. They will just get another one because breed bans punish the dog, not the owner.

On the other hand, law abiding responsible owners, whose dogs love people and have never done anything wrong, can see their homes invaded, often without a search warrant, and their beloved family members dragged away (in front of their children) to be killed. Not because the dogs are unstable or mean, but simply because of their breed. Meanwhile, the owners of truly dangerous dogs (of any breed) escape punishment because their breed is not targeted by legislation and therefor is believed "safe".

A 10 Lbs Pomeranian killed a baby a few years ago... Obviously a problem with that particular dog, not the breed. "The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)"

Because of a serious lack of regulation in dog breeding, too many dogs inherit defective genes and are sold to irresponsible owners. A breed ban will not resolve the problem. This nonsense will continue with the next macho breed and will become an endless race between breed specific legislators and unscrupulous breeders.

A Pit Bull breeder was shut down last year because Pit Bulls were banned in Topeka, Kansas. All his dogs were seized and destroyed, just for being the wrong breed at the wrong place. The man now breeds and sells African Boerboels, a rare breed from the Mastiff family, completely unknown to legislators. Unlike American Pit Bull Terriers, however, who are known for their love of people, Boerboels are serious guard dogs bred specifically as protectors. An irresponsibly bred and owned Boerboel might actually be more dangerous than an irresponsibly bred and owned Pit Bull. This is what a breed ban has accomplished in Topeka...

So in light of this, what kind of message are we telling abusive and irresponsible individuals when we make the dogs pay the price for their actions?

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/legislation.php

Answer 3

This is a delicate subject that I have argued a lot. Personally I love pit bull and Rotts. I have had both breeds as pets and they are wonderful animals. Pits are somewhat more prone to aggression and that is unavoidable. The key is to spend time training your dog and make sure that they are well socialized. Also, making sure your dog comes from good breeding is a big factor. I do NOT agree with banning specific breeds but I do think that we need to have much harsher laws against animal cruelty. If we would stop slapping these gang bangers and druggies on the wrist and start really doing something about it, then we would save a lot of dogs from that horrible fate. We do need to face the fact that because of irresponsible owners, we do have dogs that have to be put down because they are too aggressive to be rehabilitated. Its sad but true. These breeds can be wonderful in the "right hands." They do have to be socialized and trained. Its not an option. What we all need to do is stop complaining about it and start doing something about it, right?

Answer 4

breed banning is stupid. even if we ban the breed dog fighters will find some other breed to fight. so whats the point. we shouldnt ban the breed. we should ban the stupid people that fight them. it truley is the owner. take a look at all the people in jail for murdering people. studies have been done and most of those people were raised by parents who did drugs and drank alcohol. they were also abused as children. same with pits. if they r abused when they r small they will be bad dogs. and when u hear stories about them attacking and about how they were family dogs, chances r that they were irresponsibly bred and the parents were aggressive. so it isnt the dog it is the owner and the breeder. so lets ban stupid people who arent responsible with them

Answer 5

I think most people should be banned from owning some breeds. One neighbor about a half mile away has 7 pit/rottie type dogs that run loose way too often. They will come into our yard (or anyone else's) and growl at people. It is not right to have to be afraid of another person's dog in your own yard. Animal control will come and talk to the owners, fine the owners, but it never helps for more than a day or two.

Answer 6

Without some sort of legal intervention, how do we keep the vast majority of people who get pits from getting them????

I hate to go down the slippery slope of BSL, but the truth is, pits are NOT Labs, NOT Goldens, NOT Newfs......they are different from other breeds and SHOULD NOT be owned by the majority of people. How do we do that???? Most people will not even entertain the thought of admitting that pits CAN be dangerous and DO tend to be more aggressive than most other breeds. ( I do not think that Rottis should be owned by half of the people that own them either.) Something has to be done to keep pits out of the hand of criminals and clueless dog owners.

And MAN am I sick of the people comparing a Chihuahua to a pit!!!!!!!!!! Can ANYONE say they would rather be attacked by a Pit than a Chi??? You can kill a Chi with your bare hands....with the pit you are likely to lose a hand at the very least. There IS NO comparison!!!!!

Answer 7

AS a concerned and deeply committed and responsible dog owner and a loyal believer in constitutional law and a widely patriotic citizen of the USA: I am baffled to see this madness raging through out the land, as if mass extermination and sterilization of pet dogs will be the cure all to end dog attacks.

For every pit bull who attacks there are hundreds of thousand that do not.
The bond between people and dogs is older than civilization. So how in the 21st century, suddenly our oldest domestic animal has become the worst enemy civilization as ever known.

In the 32 year period from 1965-2001 pit bulls have been blamed for an average of 2.48 fatalities per year. Every year there is approximately 350 people drowned in their bath tubs, that makes it 150 times more likely to be killed in your bath tub than by a pit bulls. !50 are killed be falling coconuts which make it 60 times more likely to be killed by a palm tree than by a pit bull. 40 children are drowned in a 5 gallon pail every year, that is 15 times greater than being killed by a pit bull. There are over 5 million pit bulls in the US, in the 50s and 60s they were the most popular family dog out numbering even golden retevers. 1.25 million pit bulls were killed in shelters last year. That makes it half million times more likely that a human will kill a pit bull.
I often wonder, if the law knows that the illegal drug business being transacted by gangs are the single biggest source of dangerous dogs, though they at this time prefer pit bulls. They turn these wonderful family dog into monster for security. They train and fight these poor dogs in order to make them “ tough”. Why don’t we focus on this underlying problem instead of passing laws that will be impossible to enforce and cost more money.

Answer 8

When I was a kid dogs rarely made the news or bit people where I grew up. I don't know about banning breads. But, this whole idea about a preference for dogs that are fairly aggressive is out of hand. I think individuals should be held accountable for manslaughter if there aggressive breed kills someone. And, that jail time would be a necessary solution to irresponsible owners.

Answer 9

Honestly I believe the ban is both good and bad.

It is good for the people who refuse to responsibly care for their pets, don't care if they are running loose etc. Have had problems or know the dog is vicious. Those types of problems the ban is great. The ban is put in place to protect people.

THEN

It is bad for the owners who's pits have never caused any problems. Some towns will actually grandfather their pits in the ordnance with certain restrictions.

So you see, it is both good and bad.

Answer 10

They're banning a breed that only did what it was taught to do. That's BS. It's not the dog's fault, but the owner's fault.
Unfortunately, breed bans are hyped by ignorant people that listen more to the media rather than responsible dog owners.

Ban the ignorant owners and the abusive owners, but not the dogs.