Breed-specific legislation really isn't much of an answer at all. Why?
For starters, Pitbulls are NOT inherently attack dogs. People assume that because they were bred for the dog fighting pits, that they are this super savage beast that can at any moment turn around and bite people. Historically, that just wasn't the case. In fact, pitbulls often make terrible guard dogs, as imposing as they are. Why is that?
Imagine you are slime-sucking idiot who is breeding dogs for the fighting ring. Dogs don't fight to the death, even back then. At some point in the dog fight, the owners (or people in charge) have to reach in and stop the dog fight. Imagine if these dogs - even in the heat of battle - turned around and bit someone? If it did happen, they were usually put down, which is why pitbulls are actually quite human-friendly in general. The ones that weren't were basically killed.
Now, what makes a pitbull? What are people talking about when they say pitbulls? What does the media talk about when they say: "a pitbull attack"?
First off, the real red-nosed Pitbull terrier is a smaller dog than what people think of. They were up to 45lbs. The big, huge and muscular pitts that you see around are NOT pitbull terriers. They are out-crosses and selective breeding amongst breeders to produce a more intimidating looking dog. They are usually crossed with dogs such as the Neapolitan Mastiff to produce a larger, thicker/more muscular dog with better guarding tendencies. The results are then usually crossed-back into other PBTs.
For instance, this is NOT what many 'real' PBT breeders consider a pitbull, but the general public (and breeders) consider this to be a pitbull (NSFW for size):
Why is this important?
Well, for one, what the heck is an APBT any longer? Is it a red nosed APBT? Is the blue nosed one? What about those other lines that are bred to look like this?
The original American Pitt Bull Terrier does not look like the above. They are supposed to look like this:
They were smaller, lighter, more agile and not that imposing or intimidating at all.
So, why is this important?
The reason why most organizations do not recognize the APBT is because, well, there is no consensus on what a pitbull actually is. Breeders are crossing things into various bloodlines to produce different dogs, and these are sold off as pitbulls.
Can anyone on this forum really tell the difference between an American Bulldog (Johnson and Scott types, BTW, which look way different from one another), a Cane Corso, a Dogo Canario, a Dogo Argentino, an American Staffordshire terrier, etc., etc., etc.? I bet most people wouldn't know the difference. There is no real way to differentiate between them, and in fact, any muscular looking dog that isn't one of the more recognizable breeds like shepherds or rottweilers are included in the stats. Media can't tell the difference, and often they have been caught red-handed saying a "pitbull attack" when it was a German Shepherd attack, and so on. When do they print the retraction? If they do, who reads it?
So, ban all of these breeds that look like pitbulls? Is that the answer?
One only has to look at other countries around the world and to look at how they have dealt with breed specific legislation. Italy is probably the best case there.
Quote:
In September 2003 Italy has adopted a list of 92 breeds that were prohibited or restricted for keeping. It included even harmless Border Collies and Welsh Corgi. On 14 January 2007 the law was revised and the list of especially dangerous dogs was shortened:
- American Bulldog
- Yugoslavian Shepherd Dog
- Anatolian Shepherd Dog
- Central Asian Shepherd Dog
- Caucasian Shepherd Dog
- Portuguese Sheepdog
- Fila Brasileiro (Brazilian Mastiff)
- Dogo Argentino
- Perro da ganado majorero
- Dogo Canario
- Pitbull and all its variants
- Portuguese Mastiff
- Rottweiler
- Tosa Inu
|
This is the problem with BSL. When does it stop? Why doesn't it stop? What is a real breed or not? How do you actually make a test to see if a certain dog is of the banned breed, or isn't? What about crosses? How many out-crosses does a dog need before one can say most definitely that it isn't a pitbull?
What generally happens when BSL is enacted somewhere, is that people that want a certain type of dog just flock to the next dog that is most similar on the list, including people who should never be allowed to own a dog.
The common denominator is not the dogs. Why even look at BSL, when you can just tag the owners with problems. It should be easier for people to lose their dogs - and their future ability of having a dog (and ANY dog, for that matter) - if they fail to provide the basic essentials like proper training, food, water, shelter and socialization.
Calgary I believe does most of it right. I do think that there is a funding shortage for any legislation that is going to get tougher on the owners, but the way they handle their licensing and how problems are tagged onto the owner with a history is important. Legislation should then aggressively go after repeat offenders. In fact, Italy has further repealed their BSL and have instead enacted a tougher licensing program that targets the owners.
In a perfect world, it would be mandatory to have all owners partake in a dog training class as well as dog socialization programs. Tough to regulate it, but this would prove to be the most effective.
The problem really is that there are so many idiot owners out there who don't know how to train/discipline/socialize their dogs, and even the monsters who totally abuse them and try to 'make them tough'. Too many idiots that want a guard dog and chain their dogs up (hint: this results in a crazy dog that can't be trusted at all). If you have a need for a guard dog, go get the proper training and certification for your dog (hint: aggressive temperaments are immediately disqualified) so that it won't bite everything it sees.
I firmly believe that dogs are not inherently dangerous, but it is the irresponsible dog owners that make them so. Dogs aren't born killers.
BSL legislation is very much akin to banning certain types of vehicles. It makes as much sense to me as campaigning for the banning of certain vehicles because a terrorist used one in an attack, or banning sports cars because people break the speeding laws more frequently, or seeing what kind of cars drunk drivers are behind the wheel of and banning those cars. Legislation gets it right by going after the owner/operator of those cars through licensing and insurance, and that is how I feel dogs (and other animals actually) should be handled.
Fun fact: Pitbull terriers actually make really great companions for kids. Why? They have high pain thresholds. Dobermans actually make not so great companions for the same reason - they have lower pain thresholds. Why is this important? Watch a young child with a dog and see how they will pull on ears, tails, pinch and even bite their dogs. People often get a toy dog for a child - terrible idea. These poor dogs can't take it, and you often see quite a number of bites from small dogs on children exactly for that reason.
Responsible dog ownership for ALL breeds is what is important. A lovable black lab or golden retriever has attacked people because they lacked a decent owner, and it is just unfortunate that idiots gravitate to an otherwise wonderful breed(s) like pitbulls and other bully breeds/molosser breeds. It is always idiots who purposefully mistreat their dogs, or irresponsible owners who have no idea how to keep, train and socialize their pets.
Some people will vehemently disagree with a lot of what I wrote above, and that's fine. However, BSL is not the answer anyway, and we know this now because of how other countries are rolling-back their own legislations for being ineffective, and are finally starting to target owners. Maybe 20 years ago I might have been on the side of BSL, but there really has been ample time and a large enough sample for me to comfortably feel that it isn't the answer.
Besides, I have had big dogs most of my life, and my last dog was a bully breed and was WONDERFUL with other people (including strangers who came into my yard), other dogs and animals, and so on. Why should I be limited in the future from choosing a dog for my house because of some idiot that should be shot into space?
Quit chaining-up your damn dogs, get them exercise, get them trained and get them socialized. If you can't do the above, don't get a dog - ANY dog, including toy dogs. Go to a dog park and you see these little dogs causing so much chaos by the occasional owner. When my dog was a pup, he was attacked by a toy dog (some pomeranian cross), and the damn owner laughed cause she thought it was funny that her little dog attacked my big dog (who was a pup). I explained to her (even though I was livid) that had my dog been another 4-6 months older, he would have likely bit her dog back and we would have both lost our dogs (her dog since mine would have have bit her dog back in self defence, and mine since I had a 'big bad dog' that would have been vilified in the media as being dangerous and another statistic). She just laughed and said that her dog is just playing...
I also came across 2 american bulldogs at the dog park. One was GREAT - so well adjusted and obedient. It and the owner were being harassed by a bigger american bulldog that was obviously showing signs of aggression and trying to dominate the other bulldog. The owner of that one was screaming at the other owner to take get his dog, and he wouldn't. Just kept laughing. Actually laughing. I walked up to him and pulled out my cellphone, and told that idiot he has one second to pull his dog away or I am calling the cops, and that if anything happens I will be standing right here the whole time capturing this on video, including the owner's face and would be following him to his car if he tries to run away. He immediately stopped laughing and pulled his dog back and left. It is really idiots like these that give these dogs a bad name. The other bulldog was just so awesome, and my dog and his played for about a half hour together without a single worry.
No breed is a bad breed. Just stupid, irresponsible or malicious owners. I really believe that owners need more regulation, not the breeds themselves.
/end thesis
