Ran into this discussion on TDR and thought it was interesting. Just curious what the DTR crew thinks, as a group, about banning "pit bull" type dogs? Feel free to post your thoughts in a response, as well.

Chris

 

I voted for the third option. I think we need some pre-emptive legislation similar to gun laws to keep large dogs out of the hands of criminals. Passing legislation like this will reduce the perceived need for breed-specific legislation, IMO.

Chris

 

in may my 4 year old son was jumped on and knocked down and jumped on in MY driveway by a pit bull that was roaming loose. the dog was 8 months old so that leads me to believe that they are bred that way, not due to mistreatment or training. that is too young. the only thing that kept me from shooting it when I got it off of my kid was that I didnt want the children seeing that. my son is still scared to death of dogs, even little ones. My best friend has a 7 yr old lab that my kid has ridden since he was a toddler and a pekinese(sp?) and he wont even go over their house anymore.

needless to say the pit bull is gone and so is the renter who it belonged to.
I say ban them.

 

I voted for the 3rd option also.... where I live, a ban on pit bulls is already in effect as of May of this year....

And NO, I am NOT for the ban.....I can't help but think what breed is next?

One member of our family is a German Shepard and they have a statistically higher rate of biting incidence than Pit bulls ever did in these parts but they don't make the news around here because the bites are typically not anywhere near as severe as the Pit bull attacks. But I can just envision a statistical analyst deciding that GSD's should be banned too.

Responsible ownership is and always will be the key and if they decide banning the breed is the key, then what breed is next?

 

Sorry to hear about that. How bad was he bitten? Were you able to get the owner to pay for hospital/doctor bills?

Chris

 

Ban them ALL! The risk is way too high in my humble opinion.

 

You need an option that says:

- No. Owners are the problem, not the dogs. I'm not in favor of more regulations, but instead of owner's being held responsible for their dogs behavior.

Banning dog ownership (regardless of the breed) is not the answer. This country doesn't need more laws. It needs to enforce the ones it has and hold people accountable for their actions (or the actions of their critters).

If a car hits a cow standing in the middle of the road who pays? The rancher who owns the cow. Same thing applies here.

 

I disagree. There is a huge difference between a lose cow and a lose pit-bull. I know which one I'd rather run across. No matter how responsible the owner is, there is still a risk of the dog getting out and attacking somebody. I don't think it is any different than having a tiger as a pet.

 

I think we should ban poodles because one bit me once, also golden retrivers because one bit me when I was 8. Also any dog that has ever bitten anybody...so that means no dogs in the US.

The type of people that usually buy pitts are not good enough people to own ANY type of dog especially one you have to have controll over. One of my best friends has a huge pit and that dog is the biggest baby in the world. It whines if it doesn't have a place to sit on the couch. I have a rott and if pitts get banned so do rotts. Just because most people are stupid doesn't mean we should ban a whole breed. What about american stafforshire terrier. Same as a pitt, but show breed.

As stated above german sheppards bite more people than ANY other dog. Why don't we ban them too? Maybe because they are police dogs. If a stupid owner wants his pit to be a "mean" dog then what can we do to stop them? Ban the whole breed? NO. Just don't let those people have them. How can we do that? I don't know. Some sort of registration. If your dog isn't regestered you lose it until it is. If you have a certain criminal record no dogs for you.

If they ban rotts they'll have to put me down before I let ANYBODY put him down.

It's not the dogs fault owners are stupid.

 

What you don't seem to understand is ANY dog can attack somebody. If that is a reason to ban one breed all should be banned.

 

I honestly dont know the answer. However here in the area we have had several people killed in the last couple years and several more mauled by them. While I agree it is the owners who should be held responsible and as far as I am concerned they should be held for murder if their dog kills someone and sent away for life. However on the other hand what do you tell little Suzie whose mother was just killed by the dog. It wasnt the dogs fault it was their owner, does it matter mom is still dead. Is it really worth it to society as a whole to allow dogs that seem to have a propensity to do this type of thing. I do not know what the stats are for pitbulls vs other types of dogs for killing or mauling people but it sure "seems" or the "perception" is significantly higher for pitbulls. There are plenty of animals you are not allowed to keep because they are/can be dangerous. Should this be any different? Dont know but it is not like there arent plenty of other dog breeds out there to choose from that have a much lower record of death and mauling and can offer the exact same things to the owners as a Pitbull.

 

I'm going to call this one political. I might be wrong but I'm making that judgement call. If you want to discuss this, feel free to start a discussion about it on www.all-politics.net, our sister site dedicated to this kind of thing.