Punish the deed, Not the breed - Paw Talk - Pet Forums
Animal Welfare & Legal Issues Post articles, news alerts, and anything else pertaining to animal welfare. Legal issues and obligations regarding our pets such as renter's rights/responsibilities, vaccination laws, animal bans, etc. are also appropriate.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 47 (permalink) Old 11-30-2010, 07:10 PM Thread Starter
Adolescent Pup
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: California
Posts: 86
 
Punish the deed, Not the breed

I originally posted this on my personal blog, but thought I would do well to repost it here. Enjoy!


Cities, counties, states, countries, home owner’s associations, insurance companies, and more have banned certain breeds of dog on the premise that these breeds are “aggressive”. Since these breeds are believed to be “aggressive”, they are also thought to be more likely to bite, and thus are a greater liability. To avoid such liabilities and possible law suits, these organizations choose a “one size fits all” stance and hold an outright ban on all dogs of such breeds, regardless of the dog’s breeding, training, socializing, or even certification (such as temperament testing and canine good citizen awards). However before approving of such measures, one should question, are such bans justified? How is a certain breed determined “aggressive”?

In nearly every case, an “aggressive” dog breed is one that has been demonized by the media, not necessarily by fact. How accurate is the media? Only as accurate as what sells, and most headlines are biased to sell. What most people don’t understand or realize is that media reports only show a small percentage of actual dog bites, MOST dog bites aren’t even reported! No one wants to report that their family Poodle, Chihuahua, or Pomeranian bit the, but won’t hesitate to report a “rogue Rottweiler” wandering the streets. Most people are also unfamiliar with different dog breeds, and report the wrong breed. This can be demonstrated by such sites as this: http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html So considering these facts, media reports, and even dog bite reports from other sources, should be completely disregarded since they are biased and often inaccurate.

So if we can’t rely on the media to determine what an “aggressive” breed is, what do we rely on? Perhaps we can look at breed origins. Those breeds that originated as “guard dogs” must be aggressive, because all guard dogs were bred to bite, right? Not quite. Most people do not even fully understand the origins of different dogs, or how those dogs were developed. For example, German Shepherds appear on most “banned breed” lists. Most people believe German Shepherds were bred to be guard dogs. They were… sort of. German Shepherds were originally bred to be sheep-herding dogs. As such, they are a guard dog, the way a Great Pyrenees is a guard dog. They were bred to herd the flock of sheep and keep them safe from predators, not to attack and maul people. So if we look at origins, a German Shepherd dog should be considered no more aggressive than a Great Pyrenees, and I have never seen the Great Pyrenees listed on any banned breed list! So how about Rottweilers, typical junk yard dog right? Rottweilers were also developed as a herding breed. Like the Giant Schnauzer, Rottweilers were used for herding and driving cattle. As a robust dog, they were able to travel long distances, but also were able to protect their flocks from predators. Though they were cattle guarding dogs, they were not meant to maul people, as many popular media reports would show. Giant Schnauzers were also developed as a cattle herding dog, but also as a guard dog for butchers shops and breweries. Though Rottweilers often show up on banned breed lists, Giant Schnauzers do not, even though both breeds were developed for the same purpose! If Rottweilers and German Shepherds are considered “aggressive” breeds because they were developed for sheep and cattle guarding, likewise Great Pyrenees and Giant Schnauzers should be considered aggressive.

Now let’s look at the “pit bulls”. “Pit bull” is not a breed, but a breed group, typically comprised of the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Sometimes Bull Terriers and American Bulldogs are included in this breed group. Not all of these breeds are recognized in all clubs, but most are descended from similar roots: bulldogs crossed with terriers. The resulting crosses were bold, agile, and tenacious, possessing the strengths of both the terriers and bulldogs. Eventually these dogs were bred for the specific purpose of dog fighting, before this “sport” was made illegal. Due to this history, most people assume these “pit bull” breeds are aggressive toward people, but that is a basic misunderstanding. The original dog fighters often kept their dogs as family pets, in their homes and around their children. As a result their dogs HAD to be people-friendly. Many dog fighters also had to be able to pull their dogs out of the ring without being bit when it was obvious their dog was the loser. This resulted in a selectively bred animal that was NOT human aggressive, but was potentially dog aggressive. Back in the day, any dog that was aggressive towards people was shot on site as a liability to its handlers and their families. However if one insists that because such dogs were bred to be fighters, they must be aggressive, one must look at other dogs that were bred to be fighters. English Bulldogs must thus be considered aggressive, because they were originally bred to be bull fighters. Boxers too must be considered aggressive, because like the English Bulldog, they were originally bred for bull baiting, and possibly also for dog fighting. But again, I have never seen English Bulldogs or Boxers listed on any list of banned breeds. So if English Bulldogs and Boxers are not aggressive, even though they originated as a fighting breed, it is erroneous to consider the “pit bull” breeds aggressive simply because they too originated as fighting breeds.

How about Mastiffs? Mastiffs do occasionally show up on banned breed lists, and people assume they are “aggressive” because they too originated as a guarding breed. It is true the mastiff originated as a guarding breed. What most people do not understand about this breed is that it was NOT bred to bite, but actually bred to pin intruders until they can be apprehended. Imagine that… a dog that was bred NOT to bite being considered “aggressive”! Great Danes were originally bred for boar hunting, but later developed for guarding estates. Since wild boar are large, aggressive, strong animals, the dog used to hunt them also had to be large, strong, and aggressive. As such, the Great Dane also made a perfect estate guard, who would question such a large dog charging aggressively? But unlike the Mastiff, Great Danes do not appear on the “aggressive” breed lists. So considering the above facts on origins, “aggressive” breed lists are not composed based on breed origin. If they were, many more breeds would appear on these lists.

So what other factors might be considered in determining an aggressive breed? Breeds are constantly developing, and the breeds we see today are not necessarily the breeds they were decades or centuries ago. So origins obviously aren’t the only factor, if a factor at all. Maybe we should consider the current temperament of different breeds, that should be a good way to determine “aggression”. Here’s where things start getting very interesting.

The American Temperament Testing Society (ATTS) is an organization developed to promote a uniform temperament evaluation of purebred and spayed/neutered mixed-breed dogs. It establishes a uniform program for temperament testing, conducts seminars to provide information to people, recognizes and awards certificates to dogs that pas the requirements for temperament evaluation, and works for the betterment of all breeds of dogs. It is a non-profit organization and not associated with any dog clubs. It tests all dogs of all breeds or mixed breeds. Dogs are tested on a loose lead and evaluated by three trained individuals. Failure is recognized when a dog shows panic, strong avoidance without recovery, or unprovoked aggression. This organization looks at different aspects of temperament, including stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness, as well as instincts for protectiveness towards its handler and/or self-preservation in the face of a threat. Dogs must be at least 18 months old before it can be tested, and handlers are not allowed to talk to the dog, give commands, or give corrections. This allows the dog’s actual, unguided behavior to be evaluated. Each test contains 10 subtests in five subcategories. These subcategories are behavior toward strangers, reaction to auditory stimuli, reaction to visual stimulus, reaction to tactile stimuli, and self protective/aggressive behavior. Overall it is a very informative test, and should be considered important for all dog owners. More information about the ATTS can be found at their website: http://www.atts.org/

So now that you are familiar with the ATTS, let’s look at some of their statistics. First we will look at breeds commonly considered “aggressive”. All statistics are current as of June 2010. View all statistics here: http://atts.org/statistics.html
Rottweiler: 5,357 tested, 83.4% passed
German Shepherd: 3,038 tested, 84.2% passed
American Pit Bull Terrier: 772 tested, 86% passed
American Staffordshire Terrier: 608 tested, 83.9% passed
Staffordshire Bull Terrier: 115 tested, 89.6% passed
Bull Terrier: 73 tested, 90.4% passed
Miniature Bull Terrier: 11 tested, 100% passed
Mastiff: 177 tested, 84.2% passed
American Bulldog (often erroneously included in the “pit bull” group): 178 tested, 84.8% passed

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I would consider an 80+% pass rate pretty good. So if “aggressive” breeds are passing at 80% and more, how about other breeds that are not commonly considered “aggressive” and are not commonly included on banned breed lists?

Alaksan Malamute (see movie “Eight Below”): 222 tested, 85.1% passed
Australian Cattle Dog: 184 tested, 78.8% passed
Australian Shepherd Dog: 634 tested, 81.5% passed
Basset Hound (Itchy in "All Dogs Go to Heaven", Toby in "The Great Mouse Detective", also see "Rover Dangerfield"): 35 tested, 85.7% passed
Beagle (Lou in the movie "Cats & Dogs", also see the movie "Underdog" and "Shiloh"): 71 tested, 80.3% passed
Bichon Frise: 30 tested, 76.7% passed
Bloodhound (see Disney movie "Lady and the Tramp"): 32 tested, 71.9% passed
Border Collie (the sheepdogs in the movie "Babe", also see movie "Snow Dogs" and "Hotel for Dogs"): 265 tested, 81.1% passed
Boston Terrier (see movie "Hotel for Dogs"): 65 tested, 84.6% passed
Boxer: 418 tested, 84% passed Bulldog: 134 tested, 70.1% passed
Cairn Terrier (Toto in the movie "Wizard of Oz", see also "Dunston Checks In"): 49 tested, 70.1% passed
Chihuahua (Taco Bell commercials used a Chihuaha named "Gidget", also see the movies "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" and "Legally Blond"): 38 tested, 71.1% passed
Cocker Spaniel (Lady in the Disney movie "Lady and the Tramp"): 227 tested, 81.9% passed
Collie (Lassie from the TV series): 846 tested, 79.7% passed
Cardigan Welsh Corgi: 70 tested, 78.6% passed
Pembroke Welsh Corgi: 200 tested, 78.5% passed
Dachshund (see the Disney movie "The Ugly Dachshund"): 194 tested, 77.8% passed
Dalmatian (Disney movie "101 Dalmatians"): 329 tested, 82.4% passed
Golden Retriever (Buddy in the movie "Air Bud", Shadow in the movie "Homeward Bound" and "An Incredible Journey"): 746 tested, 84.6% passed
Great Dane (Brutus in the movie "The Ugly Dachshund", and Marmaduke in the movie "Marmaduke"): 275 tested, 79.6% passed
Greyhound: 66 tested, 81.8% passed
Jack Russell Terrier (Skip in "My Dog Skip", tv series "Wishbone"): 63 tested, 84.1% passed
Lhasa Apso: 27 tested, 70.4% passed Maltese: 16 tested, 81.3% passed
Miniature Pinscher: 53 tested, 81.1% passed
Old English Sheepdog (see the movie "The Shaggy Dog" and "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang"): 47 tested, 76.6% passed
German Shorthaired Pointer: 125 tested, 76% passed
German Wirehaired Pointer: 17 tested, 82.4% passed
Pomeranian: 33 tested, 75.8% passed
Miniature Poodle: 68 tested, 77.9% passed
Standard Poodle: 243 tested, 86% passed
Toy Poodle: 51 tested, 92.4% passed
Rhodesian Ridgeback: 424 tested, 84.4% passed
St. Bernard (see the "Beethoven" movies): 48 tested, 83.3% passed
Samoyed: 282 tested, 79.4% passed
Giant Schnauzer: 253 tested, 76.3% passed
Miniature Schnauzer: 111 tested, 78.4% passed
Standard Schnauzer: 60 tested, 66.7% passed
Shetland Sheepdog: 491 tested, 68% passed
Shih Tzu: 41 tested, 78% passed
Siberian Husky (see movie "Snow Dogs" and "Eight Below"): 295 tested, 87.1% passed
Smooth Fox Terrier: 55 tested, 76.4% passed
Weimeraner: 215 tested, 80.5% passed
Yorkshire Terrier: 40 tested, 82.5% passed

Are you surprised? I am. These breeds, most or all of which are NOT considered “aggressive” and are NOT commonly included on banned breed lists are passing temperament tests at or below the same rates as “aggressive” breeds! So…. Obviously temperament is not a reasonable way to determine what breeds are actually aggressive? To be entirely honest, that does not make sense to me at all. Out of ALL the factors one should look at when determining and “aggressive” breed, shouldn’t temperament, the inborn behavior and nature of the animal, be considered an important factor? It HAS to be an important factor! So if temperament is so important, why are breeds passing at such high rates considered aggressive?!

This is where the facts become obvious. “Aggressive” breed lists are NOT determined based on fact, they are determined based on media hype. Companies that ban certain breeds because they are “aggressive” are not basing their lists on fact, but on media hype. This should enrage people! There are breeds out there that are passing temperament testing at less than 70%! If you look at a typical grade school grading scale, that’s a D! These breeds are FAILING their temperaments tests! And yet they are not banned. Breeds such as the Standard Schnauzer and Sheltie are getting D’s in temperament tests! Other popular breeds such as Corgis, Collies (Lassie even!), Beagles, Bichon Frise, Dachshunds, Chihuahuas, Great Danes, Pomeranian, Miniature Poodles, and Shih Tzus are only passing with C’s! What does this mean? This means these breeds may be more aggressive, more nervous (and nervous dogs are more likely to bite), or more reactive than other breeds. What this means is if your child is around any one of these breeds, your child may be more likely to get bitten by one of these breeds. And yet they are on banned lists. On the other hand, “aggressive” breeds are passing temperament testing with B’s, some almost with A’s even! This compares to other breeds such as the Golden Retriever, Basset Hound, Aussie Shepherd, Boxer, St. Bernard, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Yorkshire Terrier, and Siberian Husky. “Aggressive” breeds score JUST AS WELL as the beloved family pet, the Golden Retriever! That’s irony right there… “Aggressive” breeds are just as likely to bite (or not bite) as a Golden Retriever. Hmmm…. Are you starting to wonder about those banned breed lists?

So if those are some of the breeds scoring just as well or below “aggressive” breeds, what breeds are scoring better? Since Staffordshire Bull Terriers and Bull Terriers are passing at 89.6% and 90.4%, I’m only looking at breeds that pass at 90% or higher. I am also only looking at breeds who have been tested in numbers, not just one or two dogs, to reduce bias.

Belgian Malinois: 289 tested, 91.7% passed
Black and Tan Coonhound: 13 tested, 100% passed
Black Russian Terrier: 56 tested, 92.9% passed
Boerboel: 14 tested, 100% passed
Border Terrier: 120 tested, 90.8% passed
Brittany Spaniel: 116 tested, 90.5% passed
Brussels Griffon: 11 tested, 90.9% passed
Curly-coated Retriever: 174 tested, 91.4% passed
English Cocker Spaniel: 70 tested, 92.9% passed
Flat-coated Retriever: 86 tested, 91.9% passed
Ibezan Hound: 32 tested, 90.6% passed
Irish Setter: 142 tested, 90.1% passed
Labrador Retriever: 763 tested, 92.3% passed
Norfolk Terrier: 14 tested, 92.9% passed
Parson Russell Terrier: 10 tested, 100% passed
Pekingese: 15 tested, 93.3% passed
Pug: 44 tested, 90.9% passed
Puli: 24 tested: 91.7% passed
Tibetan Spaniel: 12 tested, 91.7% passed
Toy Manchester Terrier: 14 tested, 92.9% passed

Of more interest, these breeds are commonly considered “aggressive”, but passed at a 90% rate or higher. Dogo Argentino: 13 tested, 92.3% passed Presa Canario: 30 tested, 90% passed

Even “aggressive” breeds pass temperament testing at a rate equivalent to a “B” grade, some breeds at a rate equivalent to an “A” grade, while other breeds commonly kept in households as pets, often in contact with children, are only passing at rates equivalent to “C” and “D” grades.

If temperament testing IS a good way to determine “aggressiveness” of a breed, then many breeds have been unfairly banned, while many other breeds should be banned but are not.

If temperament testing is NOT a good way to determine the “aggressiveness” of a breed, then what is?

I can just hear the arguments now…. “The only people who are getting their dogs temperament tested are the people who care enough to train their dogs! There are lots of untested dogs out there that are aggressive!” If that is true… then it is NOT the breed that is aggressive, but the dog. So WHY are we punishing innocent dogs? Rather than banning all dogs just because of their breed, we should punish the dogs who actually are aggressive, and punish the owners who keep aggressive dogs. In addition, if the only people getting their dogs tested are the people who care enough to train the, WHY are so many of the “non-aggressive” breeds passing at rates so much lower than the so-called “aggressive” breeds? If the people getting their dogs tested are the people who care enough to train their dogs, then ALL dogs tested should be passing. That is obviously not the case.

“But the aggressive dog breeds are large and can do so much more damage than the smaller toy breeds known to be biters.” Who cares how big the dog is, a bite is a bite! A small toy breed biting a child can inflict serious damage. A small toy breed can kill an infant! Shouldn’t this be considered a serious matter? If small toy breeds are known to be biters, they should be considered aggressive and should be banned as well. And what about all the other large breeds that can potentially inflict serious damage? A dog as large as a Great Dane is just as capable of inflicting serious damage as a German Shepherd, Rottweiler, or “pit bull”. Since Great Danes are passing temperament testing at a rate of 79.6%, below the so-called “aggressive” breeds, shouldn’t they be banned too? What about Giant Schnauzers who were bred to be guard dogs and are only passing at a rate of 76.3%? They too are capable of inflicting serious damage. Even Labrador Retrievers, a favorite family dog and a breed that has passed temperament testing at a rate of 92.3%, is capable of inflicting serious damage, as can be seen in this media reports: http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=65161 If other medium to large sized dogs are just as capable as so-called “aggressive” breeds of inflicting serious injury, shouldn’t they too be banned? This is a matter of human safety after all!

“The aggressive breeds are just more likely than other breeds to snap and attack. They can be fine for years and then just snap.” This kind of argument really isn’t based on any kind of fact. If a dog does indeed “snap” without any warning signs, it usually means something else is wrong with the animal, usually injury or a severe neurological disorder. If such behavior is due to a physiological problem, it should NOT be the breed that is punished, but the individual dogs and the people who keep and breed such dogs (assuming the disorder is genetic). If we do punish the entire breed for the crime of just a few, there are other breeds who should also be punished. Look up a syndrome popularly called “Springer Rage” that occurs in Springer Spaniels. The dog is fine… then one day snaps.

And other equally erroneous arguments.

So in conclusion, breed bans not only fail in protecting the public, but are also unfair. Breed bans are not based on fact, but on fallacy and error. Breed bans punish innocent dogs and people, while allowing truly aggressive dogs to run free and irresponsible people to continue owning dogs. If you are a dog lover, I urge you to fight breed bans. Instead, urge punishment of the deed. Urge temperament testing, proper training, socializing, and responsible dog ownership. If you are affected in any way by breed bans, either through your insurance company, city, county, state, or country, please write to the proper authorities and urge a change in legislature. You never know, one day YOUR favorite breed may find itself on the banned list.
Sorraia is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 47 (permalink) Old 11-30-2010, 07:15 PM Thread Starter
Adolescent Pup
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: California
Posts: 86
 
Of more interest...

I found a website listing 75 breeds that are on a banned/restrisscted list somewhere. You may be surprised.

http://hubpages.com/hub/List_Of_75_Bann ... e_New_List

1. AIREDALE TERRIER
2. AKBASH
3. AKITA
4. ALAPAHA BLUE BLOOD BULLDOG
5. ALASKAN MALAMUTE
6. ALSATIAN SHEPHERD
7. AMERICAN BULLDOG
8. AMERICAN HUSKY
9. AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER
10. AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER
11. AMERICAN WOLFDOG
12. ANATOLIAN SHEPHERD
13. ARIKARA DOG
14. AUSTRALIAN CATTLE DOG
15. AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD
16. BELGIAN MALINOIS
17. BELGIAN SHEEPDOG
18. BELGIAN TURVUREN
19. BLUE HEELER
20. BOERBUL
21. BORZOI
22. BOSTON TERRIER
23. BOUVIER DES FLANDRES
24. BOXER
25. BULLDOG
26. BULL TERRIER
27. BULL MASTIFF
28. CANE CORSO
29. CATAHOULA LEOPARD DOG
30. CAUCASIAN SHEPHERD
31. CHINESE SHAR PEI
32. CHOW-CHOW
33. COLORADO DOG
34. DOBERMAN PINSCHER
35. DOGO DE ARGENTINO
36. DOGUE DE BORDEAUX
37. ENGLISH MASTIFFS
38. ENGLISH SPRINGER SPANIEL
39. ESKIMO DOG
40. ESTRELA MOUNTAIN DOG
41. FILA BRASILIERO
42. FOX TERRIER
43. FRENCH BULLDOG
44. GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG
45. GOLDEN RETRIEVER
46. GREENLAND HUSKY
47. GREAT DANE
48. GREAT PYRANEES
49. ITALIAN MASTIFF
50. KANGAL DOG
51. KEESHOND
52. KOMONDOR
53. KOTEZEBUE HUSKY
54. KUVAZ
55. LABRADOR RETRIEVER
56. LEONBERGER
57. MASTIFF
58. NEOPOLITAN MASTIFF
59. NEWFOUNDLAND
60. OTTERHOUND
61. PRESA DE CANARIO
62. PRESA DE MALLORQUIN
63. PUG
64. ROTTWEILER
65. SAARLOOS WOLFHOND
66. SAINT BERNARD
67. SAMOYED
68. SCOTTISH DEERHOUND
69. SIBERIAN HUSKY
70. SPANISH MASTIFF
71. STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER
72. TIMBER SHEPHERD
73. TOSA INU
74. TUNDRA SHEPHERD
75. WOLF SPITZ


So if you think your dog is safe... guess again. Its only a matter of time.
Sorraia is offline  
post #3 of 47 (permalink) Old 12-17-2010, 02:33 PM
Part of the Pack
 
destroyah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: silver spring, md almost dc
Age: 36
Posts: 383
 
i find that insane!

here's another link to check out if you want to help; http://stopbsl.com/

edit; i wish they told you what states specifically and what states enforce it...

thunder, Thunder, THUNDERRATS HOOOOOO~!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
destroyah is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 47 (permalink) Old 12-17-2010, 06:04 PM
I'm not weird, I'm gifted
 
Chinchi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Denmark
Age: 32
Posts: 1,530
 
Sorry, the post is simply too long for me to read trough.

I just have one thought though:
Do you know, that a lot of these "bad" dogs are breeds made for fighting or protecting in one way or the other?
The problematic breeds have things in their genes that might make them tick off.
It is correct however, that it is possible to breed these dogs but not breed the ones with the "defects" where they just tick off. The problem is finding these dogs, and stopping all breeding on lines where a problem dog has been found.
It is possible, but this can only happen trough very dedicated breeders and owners, who screen all their potential buyers.

We just had a lot of dogs banned here. I do not believe that is the right way to get rid of problem dogs. IMO it should be handled as above, but that might be a problem when some people just want a dog to look god and do not care about the genetics or the handling and caring for the animals.

There will always be problem dogs, but some dogs are prone to be aggressive because of their genetics. People can argue all they want, but that's just a fact. It's not something you can socialise out of the dogs. It takes years of dedicated breeding work.

/Pia

I apologized if my english is not correct
Owned by chinchillas since 1997
Breeding since 2005


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
<-- Check out my blog for Chinfo
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Chinchi is offline  
post #5 of 47 (permalink) Old 12-18-2010, 01:46 PM Thread Starter
Adolescent Pup
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: California
Posts: 86
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinchi View Post
Sorry, the post is simply too long for me to read trough.

I just have one thought though:
Do you know, that a lot of these "bad" dogs are breeds made for fighting or protecting in one way or the other?
Had you taken the time to read before replying, you would see I had already addressed this. Since you didn't bother to read...

MANY breeds have been bred for fighting and guarding purposes, but are NOT banned. These breed specific bans are NOT based on fact, they are based on hysteria.

ALL of the following breeds were bred for guarding and/or fighting purposes.
Many other breeds not on this list were bred for the same purposes.
This list does NOT include dogs bred for hunting and holding large game, in other words, dogs that are equally dangerous.
The bolded breeds are the breeds typically targeted by breed specific legislation.

If ALL of these breeds were bred for the SAME purposes, why are only some of these dogs targeted?

American Bulldog
English Bulldog
Carolina Dog
Mastiff
Bullmastiff
Bull Terrier
Swedish Lapphund
Doberman
Great Dane
Boxer
Rottweiler
Great Pyrenees
Schipperke
French Bulldog
Tatra Mountain Sheepdog
Komodor
Kuvasz
Mudi
Appensell Mountain Dog
Entelbuch Mountain Dog
Maremma Sheepdog
Pyrenean Mastiff
Perro de Pastor Mallorquin
Canaan Dog
Estrela Mountain dog
Portuguese Watchdog
Portuguese Cattle Dog
Samoyed
Shar Pei
Chow
Tosa Inu
Tibetan Mastiff
Aidi
Canary Dog
American Pit Bull Terrier
Boston Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Irish Terrier
Soft-coated Wheaten Terrier
Cesky Terrier
Giant Schnauzer
Austrian Pinscher
Briard
German Shepherd Dog
Picardy Shepherd
Hovawart
Malinois
Tervuren
Bouvier Des Flanders
Istrian Sheepdog
Bergamasco

Quote:
The problematic breeds have things in their genes that might make them tick off.
Not any more than any other breed.

If these targeted breeds are "tweaked" in their genetic make up, WHY do so many pass temperament testing? In fact, why do so many of those breeds pass at such higher rates than other breeds? If something in their genes makes them "tick off", they should NOT be passing temperament tests at 80+% rates while other breeds are passing at equal, or even lesser, rates.

There is NOTHING in the genes of these targeted breeds that makes them "crazy" or "dangerous". What it comes down to is the training and socializing these dogs receive. The media likes to play up these "aggressive" breeds, while ignoring the 12 year old boy whose labrador retriever put him in the hospital and required 2000 stitches on his face. The media also likes to ignore the pomeranians that eat their little old lady owners' faces off, or the chihuahuas that kill the household's newborn baby. Why?

Quote:
It is correct however, that it is possible to breed these dogs but not breed the ones with the "defects" where they just tick off. The problem is finding these dogs, and stopping all breeding on lines where a problem dog has been found.
It is possible, but this can only happen trough very dedicated breeders and owners, who screen all their potential buyers.
Why only these breeds? How about ALL breeds. It happens in more breeds than the media likes to admit. In fact... one breed even has a disorder named after them, "Springer Rage".

And again, these breeds do NOT have "defects" that make them "tick off". *INDIVIDUAL* dogs may, certain bloodlines may. HOWEVER those individuals do not make the breed. Those bloodlines do not make the breed. If Rottweilers are so dangerous because their breed is "infected" with some kind of genetic "defect" that makes them randomly "tick off", why are over 80% of over 5,000 dogs passing temperament testing? Why are over 80% of over 3,000 German Shepherds passing temperament testing? Why are 90% of Bull Terriers passing temperament testing? Why are over 80% of "pit bull" type dogs passing temperament testing? Meanwhile, America's favorite celebrity dog, Lassie, is only passing the SAME test at 79%. Pomeranians at 76%, Corgis at less than 80%, Chihuahuas 71%, Greyhounds 81%. Instead of targeting only certain breeds, maybe every other breed should be targeted as well, since they are failing their temperament tests. All of this was also addressed in the original post that was "too long" to read.

Quote:
We just had a lot of dogs banned here. I do not believe that is the right way to get rid of problem dogs. IMO it should be handled as above, but that might be a problem when some people just want a dog to look god and do not care about the genetics or the handling and caring for the animals.
If people just want a good looking dog with no concern about handling or caring for the animals, why are we even banning breeds? This is not a problem limited to only certain breeds, it is a problem that occurs over ALL breeds. Bad breeding occurs over ALL breeds. Rather than targeting only certain breeds that have been demonized by the media (often mistakenly), why not target those individual dogs who have PROVEN they are aggressive? Why not target those individual people who have PROVEN they do not know how to handle the dogs?

Banning breeds will NOT solve the problem, NEVER. Breed bans only punish innocent dogs and responsible owners.

Quote:
There will always be problem dogs, but some dogs are prone to be aggressive because of their genetics. People can argue all they want, but that's just a fact. It's not something you can socialise out of the dogs. It takes years of dedicated breeding work.
Some DOGS, *INDIVIDUAL* dogs are aggressive. You just said it. Dogs are not a breed, dogs are a species.

If *INDIVIDUALS* are aggressive, why are we punishing entire breeds? Some Caucasians are skinheads, should we kill all Caucasians to get rid of racism? Some Hispanics are part of gangs, so should we lock up all Hispanics to get rid of gangs? That is essentially what breed bans aim to do, solve the problem by exterminating the individuals, no matter who they are, just because they look a certain way.
Sorraia is offline  
post #6 of 47 (permalink) Old 12-19-2010, 09:43 AM
Betta Bomb
 
Purple-Hops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: SJ Newfoundland, Canada
Age: 31
Posts: 5,202
Blog Entries: 5
  
I agree, simply too long for me to read all the way through. I hate BSL and yes, was shocked to see some on the list of banned breeds somewhere. The Newfoundland dog, for instance, was bred in my province as a water safety dog!! It saves lives!! lol Where was it banned? Others on the list, like terriers, I;m sure were banned based on bad owners not keeping them exercised. My terrier, when he was young got out and bit a few kids in the neighborhood bc he was exploding with energy bc he was kept inside and not exercised. He's a good dog and wouldn't think of biting anyone now that he gets daily walks!!
People doing the testing I think should look into background reasons why a dog might show aggression. Usually it's just boredom or lack of socialization. A dog that is confined will act in an aggressive way as an outlet, not because the dog is bad! oh my. . . I hate the BSL that I read about.
Purple-Hops is offline  
post #7 of 47 (permalink) Old 12-19-2010, 09:58 AM Thread Starter
Adolescent Pup
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: California
Posts: 86
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple-Hops View Post
People doing the testing I think should look into background reasons why a dog might show aggression. Usually it's just boredom or lack of socialization. A dog that is confined will act in an aggressive way as an outlet, not because the dog is bad! oh my. . . I hate the BSL that I read about.
The temperament tests performed by the ATTS are comprised of 10 subtests. These tests are designed to determine how the dog behaves and reacts in a normal environment - how the dog reacts to several types of strangers ranging from friendly to aggressive (the strangers not the dog), how the dog reacts to different visual and tactile stimuli, etc. If the dog shows unprovoked aggression or panic, and does not recover quickly, the dog fails the test. It is not the ATTS's job to make sure dogs are well exercised, and it is not within their ability to determine that either. An owner can claim such when really their dog is poorly trained and socialized. A poorly trained and poorly socialized dog can be aggressive too, but that does not make aggressive behavior an excuse. A dog that bites is a dog that bites, regardless of the reason (UNLESS that aggression was provoked - such as someone beating the dog until it couldn't take any more). Lack of training, lack of socializing, lack of proper diet, lack of proper medical care are not good excuses to allow inexcusable behavior. Also - banned breeds are not allowed these excuses when they bite someone. If excuses are to be allowed, they should be allowed across ALL breeds, not just some.
Sorraia is offline  
post #8 of 47 (permalink) Old 12-19-2010, 02:36 PM
I'm not weird, I'm gifted
 
Chinchi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Denmark
Age: 32
Posts: 1,530
 
Sorry, I'm not going to wast time on you when you are so rude!

/Pia

I apologized if my english is not correct
Owned by chinchillas since 1997
Breeding since 2005


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
<-- Check out my blog for Chinfo
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Chinchi is offline  
post #9 of 47 (permalink) Old 12-20-2010, 12:09 AM Thread Starter
Adolescent Pup
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: California
Posts: 86
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinchi View Post
Sorry, I'm not going to wast time on you when you are so rude!
Personally I think its rude to say "Oh your message is too long to read". If its too long to read, why bother even replying? Why bother trying to discuss if you aren't going to read what was said?
Sorraia is offline  
post #10 of 47 (permalink) Old 12-20-2010, 12:49 AM
Part of the Pack
 
Zylca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 374
 
Pit Bull bans are on the horizon for my state. http://love-a-bull.org/resources/bsl/ It's been pointed out the amount of tax dollars it will take to implement such a ban will far exceed the "expected" benefits of doing so.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Zylca is offline  
post #11 of 47 (permalink) Old 12-20-2010, 04:41 AM
Curmudgeon
 
Mygala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tycho Base, Luna
Posts: 1,843
      
You have provided a perfect example of why BSL's happen.

It's not just about dogs biting people. The people who are pushing BSL's can present their case with a single paragraph. All it takes is a dead or mutilated child, an elderly person attacked, or someone's pet killed... Simple facts, easy to digest.

The people fighting them try to come up with all kinds of facts, figures, reports, studies, etc. to prove their point. They come up with tons of stuff that no one is going to read. You provided a perfect example of something few folks want to take the time to read. Your "facts" are wasted if no one reads them.

You can shout this stuff until you're blue in the face, but unless you make is short, readable and compelling, you are just another voice in the wind. Making a post like this does nothing but make you feel good. And if anyone does read it, you can bet they've already made up their minds on this issue. They probably even own one of the dogs you mention. You are, in essence, "preaching to the choir".

This is an emotionally driven issue. You aren't going to win with by boring the opposition to death.

I don't know what's going to work at these city council meetings.

But I do know what ISN'T going to work. ...your approach has failed miserably up until now. Voters are what politicians respond to, ...not reams of facts. ...and voters respond to chewed up children.

Until you can stop the media feeding frenzy that surrounds each baby killed by a "pit bull", ...you aren't going to stop breed specific legislations from passing.

THAT's a fact.

Bob



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The Mistress
"Cogito Ergo Zoom"
I think, therefore I drive fast.
Mygala is offline  
post #12 of 47 (permalink) Old 12-21-2010, 12:21 AM Thread Starter
Adolescent Pup
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: California
Posts: 86
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mygala View Post
You have provided a perfect example of why BSL's happen.

It's not just about dogs biting people. The people who are pushing BSL's can present their case with a single paragraph. All it takes is a dead or mutilated child, an elderly person attacked, or someone's pet killed... Simple facts, easy to digest.

The people fighting them try to come up with all kinds of facts, figures, reports, studies, etc. to prove their point. They come up with tons of stuff that no one is going to read. You provided a perfect example of something few folks want to take the time to read. Your "facts" are wasted if no one reads them.

You can shout this stuff until you're blue in the face, but unless you make is short, readable and compelling, you are just another voice in the wind. Making a post like this does nothing but make you feel good. And if anyone does read it, you can bet they've already made up their minds on this issue. They probably even own one of the dogs you mention. You are, in essence, "preaching to the choir".

This is an emotionally driven issue. You aren't going to win with by boring the opposition to death.

I don't know what's going to work at these city council meetings.

But I do know what ISN'T going to work. ...your approach has failed miserably up until now. Voters are what politicians respond to, ...not reams of facts. ...and voters respond to chewed up children.

Until you can stop the media feeding frenzy that surrounds each baby killed by a "pit bull", ...you aren't going to stop breed specific legislations from passing.

THAT's a fact.

Bob
In all honesty, the point of my original blog WAS to preach to the choir. Its meant to urge people who care about this issue to take a stand instead of sitting back and letting it happen. It isn't meant to change minds that have been made up.

As far as changing the media... fat chance of that happening. The media reports what sells. "Chihuaha eats face off little old lady owner" just doesn't sell as well as "vicious pit bull attacks child, hospitalized in critical condition". The media also isn't factual, and making the media factual is like trying to send an elephant through the eye of a needle. In order to change what the media reports, we need to change what sells. To change what sells, we need to change people's minds. You claim that isn't going to work. Well... if you give up, it won't work. Rome wasn't built in a day, segregation didn't end after one march, women weren't granted suffrage after one rally, and so on, you get the picture.
Sorraia is offline  
post #13 of 47 (permalink) Old 12-21-2010, 06:29 AM
Rodentologist
 
Jennicat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,941
  
I agree with Sorraia, it's pretty darn rude to say something is too long to bother reading and then want to debate when the answers are already in what you refuse to read.

But there are always the ignorant that will fall back on "Oh, but some breeds are bred to fight!" without really understanding those breeds or that they should have the greatest human bite inhibition of all.

They could look at the fact that there are problems with self reporting (as most people can't identify a pit bull in a lineup), problems with ineffective coverage (a story recently showed up where a dog attacked a woman and they inserted a stock image of a pit bull into it -- sigh). They can also ignore the statistics stating that 90%+ of attacks are perpetrated by intact animals, and instead of pushing for comprehensive spay/neuter legislature, they can continue focusing on breed and having responsible owners punished.

We are as gods to the beasts of the fields. We order the time o' their birth and the time o' their death. Between times, we ha' a duty. - Terry Pratchett.

"Men have forgotten this truth", said the fox, "But you must not forget it. You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed. - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Jennicat is offline  
post #14 of 47 (permalink) Old 12-21-2010, 12:19 PM
Part of the Pack
 
destroyah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: silver spring, md almost dc
Age: 36
Posts: 383
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinchi View Post
Sorry, the post is simply too long for me to read trough.

I just have one thought though:
Do you know, that a lot of these "bad" dogs are breeds made for fighting or protecting in one way or the other?
The problematic breeds have things in their genes that might make them tick off.
It is correct however, that it is possible to breed these dogs but not breed the ones with the "defects" where they just tick off. The problem is finding these dogs, and stopping all breeding on lines where a problem dog has been found.
It is possible, but this can only happen trough very dedicated breeders and owners, who screen all their potential buyers.

We just had a lot of dogs banned here. I do not believe that is the right way to get rid of problem dogs. IMO it should be handled as above, but that might be a problem when some people just want a dog to look god and do not care about the genetics or the handling and caring for the animals.

There will always be problem dogs, but some dogs are prone to be aggressive because of their genetics. People can argue all they want, but that's just a fact. It's not something you can socialise out of the dogs. It takes years of dedicated breeding work.
le sigh... there is no scientific basis to what you just said. at all, that was the entire purpose of the post. the fact that even an animal over like yourself buys it is where the problem lies.

most bsl is not determined by actual aggressiveness of the breed but of jaw strength and overall musculature. meaning great danes (not a bully breed ) are illegal in some places just because they are big and can bite hard even though.

the most important thing that you should take away from the original post is; in areas where BSL is implemented, no effect on the dog attack incidence is observed. NONE, there's no change in how many people get bitten by dogs pet year. I'm talking the biggest difference in 10 years of BSL being .04 percent.

most dog experts will tell you that no dog is aggressive by itself and every puppy can develop into a safe family pet and companion.

being a responsible breeder is only one part of how to fix this stereotype. you have to be a responsible owner too.

thunder, Thunder, THUNDERRATS HOOOOOO~!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
destroyah is offline  
post #15 of 47 (permalink) Old 12-21-2010, 12:34 PM
Part of the Pack
 
destroyah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: silver spring, md almost dc
Age: 36
Posts: 383
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinchi View Post
Sorry, I'm not going to wast time on you when you are so rude!
dude, no one is trying to be rude to you, its just kind of upsetting to put alot into a post that specifically addresses all of the issues you brought up and then have you repeat the stereotype that she was trying to destroy. if you won't read her post and listen, at least check this out;

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...y_it_does.html

thunder, Thunder, THUNDERRATS HOOOOOO~!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
destroyah is offline  
Reply

Tags
banned, bsl, restriction


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome