I think you are confusing me here. I'm not saying that they don't (ours just put down a big ol st bernard for not passing eval.) However you cannot save them all.
No, I am not confusing you, I am responding to your comment of
I'm against BSL but look at it from a shelter's point of view. Should they adopt out a dog so set on killing another dog that it poses a danger to the public especially when there are other dogs that aren't aggressive at all?
If you are against BSL, why would you support it for shelters? You can't save every dog or every cat, and no where did I say you can, but why would you select certain BREEDS to destroy, which is what BSL does. Shelters need to evaluate INDIVIDUAL dogs instead of destroying dogs because they happen to be a certain breed. By evaluating INDIVIDUAL dogs regardless of breed, good dogs CAN be saved while bad dogs (no matter what breed they are) can be humanely euthanized and the public can be kept safe.
Those that have control don't have issues. However 99% of people don't have control, thats the problem. It is the same reason retired police dogs face the same fate as many pits. Just the other day I had to severely mace another dog because someone couldn't control their it later to find out the dog had a severe reaction to the mace. It wasn't my fault it came after me and it wasn't the dog's fault that it had that person as an owner. What I'm trying to say here is that dogs aggressive towards other dogs are just as bad as others aggressive towards people. How fair would it be that my dogs that did nothing wrong were punished because a dog known to pick and choose other dogs was allowed out of the shelter? Just because the dog won't attack me doesn't mean I don't see it as a threat to my pack.
And that control issue is something A LOT of people have regardless what breed or what kind of aggression it is. There are certain people's house I will NOT go to because they have no control over their dogs. While their dogs are not aggressive, they are poorly mannered, and frankly when I go over for a visit I don't want to be jumped on, period.
Again this should be an individual evaluation (of both dog and owner), NOT breed stereotyping. BSL is NOT the answer. Proper temperament testing and evaluation, and dangerous dog laws ARE. Dangerous dog laws do NOT stereotype base don breed the way BSL does. Dangerous dog laws DO evaluate the individual dog and its history. THAT is an appropriate and responsible action to take to make society safer for both people and dogs.
It is sad to say that some dogs bred for fighting are trained to the point where yes they will attack anything that is a dog. Of course if we eliminated dog fighting, this problem will probably be gone as well.
Those INDIVIDUAL dogs need to be euthanized if they are a danger to society. That does NOT mean the breeds those dogs happen to belong to are dangerous though. I have a dog who is 1/4 American Staffordshire Terrier. She is neither dog aggressive nor human aggressive, she isn't food aggressive or aggressive in any other way. She has a strong prey drive, but she is well trained enough she can manage and control that prey drive. However if BSL were in effect in my area, I would be forced to euthanize her. I would be forced to euthanize a GOOD dog because she looks like a pit bull. She may only be 1/4 American Staffordshire, but to the naive and "ignorant" public she looks all "pit bull". Even though she's been DNA tested, that 1/4 may be enough for the authorities to confiscate her. Why should my dog, who has gone through extensive training to be a good member of society, be euthanized JUST because she is part AmStaff? JUST because AmStaffs were developed from dogs who were bred for fighting?
If we start eliminating breeds based on their history, there are a LOT of breeds out there that will need elimination, more than those being currently targeted by BSL. All breeds ever bred for fighting or baiting should be eliminated, all breeds ever bred for guarding should be eliminated, because those breeds can potentially be dangerous when put in the wrong hands. We will have to include those breeds who were not actually bred for those purposes, but were bred from other breeds that were developed for those purposes, because the same behaviors and tendencies may be passed on. That list will include, but not be limited to, (and not listing all the breeds commonly targeted by BSL) Tibetan Terrier, Beaceron, Briard, Catahoula Leopard Dog and other "Cur" breeds, Plott Hound, English Coonhound, Kai Dog, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Boston Terrier, Irish Terrier, all breeds of Bulldog, all breeds of Mastiff, Great Dane, Boxer, Schipperke, Pyrenean Mountain dog, Komodor, Maremma Sheedog, Canaan Dog, the Laika breeds, Shar Pei, and Chow Chow.
Again, the individual dog, NOT the breed, needs to be considered. You can have bad dogs of ANY breeds. Labrador Retrievers have killed and maimed people, showing that even America's favorite "family dog" can be aggressive. ANY dog can be dangerous. BSL ignores that fact and instead targets innocent, GOOD dogs simply because of their breed.
I don't believe I said BSL does solve aggressive dog problems? In fact I believe I said I was against BSL.
Your statement quoted above indicates otherwise. If you are completely against BSL, you don't say "I'm against BSL, BUT" Instead you look for alternatives to BSL. My proposed alternative is dangerous dog laws and temperament testing and evaluation, which will target individual dogs instead of stereotyping by breed.