Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There must be some reason why these dogs are catagorized as dangerous.
There are a lot of ignorant people in this world, just because they all agree on something does not make them any more enlightened.
Quote:
Check with Allstate and see if they will insure your home if you have a pit bull.
Again, simply because someone makes a policy on something does not mean its correct. The statistics clearly show that deer and horses are FAR more dangerous to humans than pitt bulls but Allstate doesn't reject auto policies if you live in a high deer population region or reject home/life insurance if you own a horse because these are not caught up in some unfounded fear or irrational craze.
I have to agree with your wife...American Cocker Spanials are guilty until proven innocent. It's the only dog I've even been bit by with intent.
And yet you say - There is nothing that makes any whole bred of dog more dangerous then any other.
Seems inconsistent.
"The Humane Society of the United States estimates that more than $100 million gets spent yearly treating dog bites in the nation's emergency rooms, and U.S. insurance companies paid out $250 million in dog-bite liability claims in 1996.
Pit bulls and pit-bull crosses (not always easy to distinguish) have caused more than a third of the nation's dog-bite fatalities since 1979 and a comparable proportion of serious injuries."
The Humane Society of the United States offers the following position regarding breed-specific policies.
The HSUS opposes legislation aimed at eradicating or strictly regulating dogs based solely on their breed for a number of reasons. Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is a common first approach that many communities take. Thankfully, once research is conducted most community leaders correctly realize that BSL won't solve the problems they face with dangerous dogs.
There are over 4.5 million dog bites each year.
This is an estimate as there is no central reporting agency for dog bites, thus breed and other information is not captured. Out of the millions of bites, about 10-20 are fatal each year. While certainly tragic, it represents a very small number statistically and should not be considered as a basis for sweeping legislative action.
It is imperative that the dog population in the community be understood. To simply pull numbers of attacks does not give an accurate representation of a breed necessarily. For example, by reviewing a study that states there have been five attacks by golden retrievers in a community and 10 attacks by pit bulls in that same community it would appear that pit bulls are more dangerous. However, if you look at the dog populations in that community and learn that there are 50 golden retrievers present and 500 pit bulls, then the pit bulls are actually the safer breed statistically.
While breed is one factor that contributes to a dog's temperament, it alone cannot be used to predict whether a dog may pose a danger to his or her community. A September 2000 study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (VetMed Today: Special Report) further illustrates this point.
The report details dog bite related fatalities in the United States from 1979 through 1998, and reveals that over the nineteen years examined in the study at least 25 different breeds or crossbreeds of dogs were involved in fatally wounding human beings. Breeds cited range from oft-maligned pit bulls and Rottweilers to the legendary "forever loyal" breed of St. Bernards. The study was conducted by a group of veterinarians, medical doctors, and psychology and public health experts.
The main conclusion of the study was that breed-specific legislation doesn't work for several reasons: that there are inherent problems in trying to determine a dog's breed, making enforcement of breed-specific legislation difficult at best; that fatal attacks represent a very small portion of bite-related injuries and should not be the major factor driving public policy; and that existing non-breed-specific legislation already exists and offers promise for the prevention of dog bites.
Two decades ago, pit bulls and Rottweilers (the most recent breeds targeted) attracted little to no public concern. At that time it was the Doberman pinscher who was being vilified. In 2001, few people had heard of the Presa Canario breed, involved in the tragic, fatal attack on Diane Whipple in California in January of that year. Now that breed is being sought by individuals who desire the new "killer dog." Unfortunately, the "problem dog" at any given time is often the most popular breed among individuals who tend to be irresponsible, if not abusive, in the control and keeping of their pets. Simply put, if you ban one breed, individuals will just move on to another one. Banning a breed only speeds up the timetable.
Communities that have banned specific breeds have discovered that it has not been the easy answer they thought it would be. In some areas, media hype has actually increased the demand for dogs whose breed is in danger of being banned. Animal control agencies, even those that are well funded and equipped, have found the laws to be an enforcement nightmare.
Restrictions placed on a specific breed fail to address the larger problems of abuse, aggression training, and irresponsible dog ownership. Again, breed alone is not an adequate indicator of a dog's propensity to bite. Rather, a dog's tendency to bite is a product of several factors, including but not limited to:
Early socialization, or lack thereof, of the dog to people.
Sound obedience training for recognition of where he or she "fits" with regard to dominance and people, or mistraining for fighting or increased aggression.
Genetic makeup, including breed and strains within a breed.
Quality of care and supervision by the owner (is the dog part of the family or is she kept chained outside?).
Current levels of socialization of the dog with his or her human family.
Behavior of the victim.
Whether the dog has been spayed or neutered.
If the goal is to offer communities better protection from dogs who are dangerous, then thoughtful legislation that addresses responsible dog keeping is in order. Legislation aimed at punishing the owner of the dog rather than punishing the dog is far more effective in reducing the number of dog bites and attacks. Well enforced, non-breed-specific laws offer an effective and fair solution to the problem of dangerous dogs in all communities.
Comprehensive "dog bite" legislation, coupled with better consumer
http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/dangerous_dogs.html (broken link)
Aw heck... Just ban people. Then we'd have no suffering domesticated animals, no guns, no wars, no nuclear waste, no landfills, no greenhouse gasses, no presidents, no cars (excuse me, I mean people) running down deer on the roads! No problems!
And yet you say - There is nothing that makes any whole bred of dog more dangerous then any other.
Seems inconsistent.
"The Humane Society of the United States estimates that more than $100 million gets spent yearly treating dog bites in the nation's emergency rooms, and U.S. insurance companies paid out $250 million in dog-bite liability claims in 1996.
Pit bulls and pit-bull crosses (not always easy to distinguish) have caused more than a third of the nation's dog-bite fatalities since 1979 and a comparable proportion of serious injuries."
Cockers (American) have a known brain issue (The English cockers did not undergo the same breeding program for a 'sleek head' as the American ones did. This lead to American Cockers having a brain case basically too small for their brain.)...and as I said, the only time I've been bit with intent (to harm me by the dog) was a cocker. That makes me nerves about them until I know the indivdual dog.
I am not set on banning them based on their just being a breed, keeping them out of dog parks or denying folks home owners insurance is they own an American Cocker. I am, personally, wary of them....again until I know the dog.
I can certainly see someone having the same stance (wary until you see how the dog behaves) with any breed or dog in general. It is much different then saying that all dogs of a certain breed are bad, evil or dangerous just for breathing.
As for your stats on bites....I wonder how many of those were caused by people that trained the dog to fight or otherwise abused it. If it wasn't pitbulls, those same idiots would be training other big dogs....and getting bit.
Here how the humane society feels about the issue:
((**text snip**))
The Humane Society of the United States offers the following position regarding breed-specific policies.
http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/dangerous_dogs.html (broken link)
Of course the humane society is going to say that or else they wouldn't have humane in their name.
It is imperative that the dog population in the community be understood. To simply pull numbers of attacks does not give an accurate representation of a breed necessarily. For example, by reviewing a study that states there have been five attacks by golden retrievers in a community and 10 attacks by pit bulls in that same community it would appear that pit bulls are more dangerous.
However, if you look at the dog populations in that community and learn that there are 50 golden retrievers present and 500 pit bulls, then the pit bulls are actually the safer breed statistically.
The weighted average method is fine but until we all actually know the number of pit bulls in one area, it is all just speculation. Just from typical observation, is every 3rd dog you see a pit bull? No, not likely. So until that time the number of 1 out of every 3 dog bites holds as a good relevant figure. And the contention that people will move on to the next breed? Where is the proof of that? This is based on attacks, not people.
EXACTLY that was the point that you left out from the analysis they did which is
"If the goal is to offer communities better protection from dogs who are dangerous, then thoughtful legislation that addresses responsible dog keeping is in order. Legislation aimed at punishing the owner of the dog rather than punishing the dog is far more effective in reducing the number of dog bites and attacks. Well enforced, non-breed-specific laws offer an effective and fair solution to the problem of dangerous dogs in all communities."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
