# Ban on pit bulls **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 1, 2004, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988 "2004-10-01T03:46:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2004, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/181 "2004-10-23T15:17:00Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > May I ask how old you are? … And now you’re advocating the ban of another breed and defending Dobies as NOT a “bad” breed. The mind boggles. Oh no, not the “In my day, young man…” argument. This is not just another “bad” breed, I wish it was. Pitbulls were bred for violence, they were bred to kill one another. I’m sure you know that. Comparing them to any other bred that MAY be aggressive is dishonest and fails the slippery slope test…as pitbulls are **supposed** to be aggressive. Secondly, I’m not advocating anything, but let’s be honest here; Pitbulls are unique and should be treated such. They are not just aggressive because they are “trained” or abused , they are born that way. We ban specific species of animals all time if they are dangerous. Most dogs are not bred to be dangerous, some dogs can be trained to be dangerous. Pitbulls must be trained **not** to be dangerous, fortunately they are usually only aggressive to other dogs. I agree that the “hype” over what a dangerous dogs is shifts depending of what dog is current, and if pitbulls were the same as any other “aggressive” dog, I would agree even more. HOWEVER, pitbulls are not like any other aggressive dog and to treat them as such is a recipe for disaster. Even established breeders will tell you that. > [@](#): > > Any of those dogs, as well as hundreds of other breeds, could easily be bred into “bad” dogs. A dog generation, for an unscrupulous breeder, is 6 months. In five years, you can have “generations of dogs that have been breed on the streets for this”. Untrue. Pitbulls are unique. Not just because of their aggression, but because of their “heart”, their ability to take abuse, their ability to continue to fight even when they are mortally wounded. Their physique, their “gameness”, you name it and that breed has it. You don’t breed that in 5 years, into one of any hundred of other breeds. Have a look into the history of the pitbull and see what they did to create it…I don’t see these guys doing it. [quote] What sort of knuckle-head do you think breeds fighting pits today?..Do you think it takes some great intellect to toss an in-heat bitch and a stud in a pen together? Almost everyone understands the idea of “breed game dogs to get game dogs and dump the ones that aren’t what you want”. [quote] One of your arguments against banning, is that they will just change to another breed. My point is it’s not that simple. Sure any fool can toss an agressive rottie and dobbie in pen and create something. So what? Let’s say this guy somehow manages to create an aggressive dog. It fights and lays down and dies, because despite it’s aggression, it’s not built to survive in the pit. If breeding game dogs was that simple, there wouldn’t be any profit in the ‘sport’. Clearly it requires _some_ skill. Truth is this isn’t even about those ‘skilled’ breeders, they have enough sense to keep a low profile. What this is about is their castoffs, dogs not aggressive to win a fight, but too aggressive to function in society and they sell them to mr. knuckle-head. You really believe this person in FIVE years will create a breed that is able to replace the pitbull? Again the pitbull is a unique creation, aggression is only a part of it’s appeal. These knuckle-heads aren’t going to shift to hundreds of other breeds, because tossing a bitch in heat in a pen won’t create what they want. Remember the sport has to be EXCITING, that means quick dogs. It has to last, that means dogs that don’t bleed out quicky or will continue to fight even as they die. Right off the bat that rules out most breeds that ‘we’ are familar with. Unless intensive breeding is done and that doesn’t happen in 5 years. So while I agree that banning isn’t the answer…I don’t think your reasons are any better than those advocating banning. ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2004, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/182 "2004-10-24T02:52:36Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > The thing is that it’s not a particularly harmful law. Very few people own fighting dogs and many who do are not mental patients/professional dog-fighters who simply MUST have a specific breed. > > Banning dogs bred & physically adapted to fighting/killing from populated areas is no crazier an idea than banning bear or bob cat ownership. Hey guys, I think we must be winning; they’ve had to start on the ad hominems. **CarnalK** , it’s very gracious of you to determine that something that isn’t going to affect you negatively in any manner isn’t particularly harmful. Tell that to the people that lose their dogs. You are correct - very few people own fighting dogs, the majority of pitbull owners included. Most pitbull owners are neither mental patients nor professional dogfighters, thank you very much, they are simply people who prefer a particular breed of dog, for a variety of reasons which have nothing whatsoever to do with fighting it. And, quite obviously, huge numbers of people feel they simply MUST have a specific breed, or they wouldn’t be willing to pay hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars for registered dogs. OK, so you want to ban dogs bred and physically adapted to fighting/killing. _Still_ waiting for the answer to that question that’s been floating around for several pages now: which dogs are those? ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2004, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/183 "2004-10-24T03:35:12Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > Oh no, not the “In my day, young man…” argument. This is not just another “bad” breed, I wish it was. Pitbulls were bred for violence, they were bred to kill one another. I’m sure you know that. Comparing them to any other bred that MAY be aggressive is dishonest and fails the slippery slope test…as pitbulls are **supposed** to be aggressive. Secondly, I’m not advocating anything, but let’s be honest here; Pitbulls are unique and should be treated such. They are not just aggressive because they are “trained” or abused , they are born that way. Yup, still repeating all the same, old, tired arguments that have been used for at least the last 40 years. Let us know when you find something to say that hasn’t been trotted out for every “bad breed” fad. You’re right, though, I shouldn’t have asked about your age. I should have asked if you’d read any of this thread, where the repetitive dog-ban syndrome has been brought up repeatedly. > [@](#): > > We ban specific species of animals all time if they are dangerous. Most dogs are not bred to be dangerous, some dogs can be trained to be dangerous. Pitbulls must be trained **not** to be dangerous, fortunately they are usually only aggressive to other dogs. Wrong. No dog breed needs training to be dangerous, all they need is the right set of circumstances. It is true, however, that pitbulls are generally dog-aggressive rather than people-aggressive. > [@](#): > > I agree that the “hype” over what a dangerous dogs is shifts depending of what dog is current, and if pitbulls were the same as any other “aggressive” dog, I would agree even more. Ah, so you admit that you’re rehashing the same, old, tired lines - but this is _different_! THIS time it’s REAL! Yeah, right. That’s what all those chain emails tell me too. > [@](#): > > HOWEVER, pitbulls are not like any other aggressive dog and to treat them as such is a recipe for disaster. Even established breeders will tell you that. ``` Oh, please. You treat them *exactly* like any other "aggressive" breed - socialize them thoroughly from an early age, establish and maintain dominance, and treat them decently. No magic wand, just some work. ``` > [@](#): > > Untrue. Pitbulls are unique. Not just because of their aggression, but because of their “heart”, their ability to take abuse, their ability to continue to fight even when they are mortally wounded. Their physique, their “gameness”, you name it and that breed has it. You don’t breed that in 5 years, into one of any hundred of other breeds. Have a look into the history of the pitbull and see what they did to create it…I don’t see these guys doing it. OK, I’ll bite. Exactly what is the history of the pitbull? Details, please. What magic was performed that no one currently living can pull off? > [@](#): > > One of your arguments against banning, is that they will just change to another breed. My point is it’s not that simple. Sure any fool can toss an agressive rottie and dobbie in pen and create something. So what? Let’s say this guy somehow manages to create an aggressive dog. It fights and lays down and dies, because despite it’s aggression, it’s not built to survive in the pit. If breeding game dogs was that simple, there wouldn’t be any profit in the ‘sport’. Clearly it requires _some_ skill. Truth is this isn’t even about those ‘skilled’ breeders, they have enough sense to keep a low profile. What this is about is their castoffs, dogs not aggressive to win a fight, but too aggressive to function in society and they sell them to mr. knuckle-head. > > You really believe this person in FIVE years will create a breed that is able to replace the pitbull? Again the pitbull is a unique creation, aggression is only a part of it’s appeal. > > These knuckle-heads aren’t going to shift to hundreds of other breeds, because tossing a bitch in heat in a pen won’t create what they want. Remember the sport has to be EXCITING, that means quick dogs. It has to last, that means dogs that don’t bleed out quicky or will continue to fight even as they die. Right off the bat that rules out most breeds that ‘we’ are familar with. Unless intensive breeding is done and that doesn’t happen in 5 years. But we’re not talking about the people fighting dogs - that’s a completely separate topic. We’re talking about Mr. Knucklehead, who buys the current “scary dog of the week”. Are you trying to tell me that pitbulls weren’t available to Mr. Knucklehead until the mid 1990s, when they suddenly became popular? They bought Shepherds and Dobies and Rotts because pitbulls only came into existence 15 years ago? That kinda crosses up your argument that it takes hundreds of years to breed 'em, doncha think? > [@](#): > > So while I agree that banning isn’t the answer…I don’t think your reasons are any better than those advocating banning. Ok, you agree that banning isn’t the answer, but you’re arguing for it. I must confess I’m a tad confused. However, I would be interested in hearing what you think the answer should be. And I’ll ask you too, although I will restrict the question since you say you’re opposed to banning and just seem to have some beef about pitbulls - please explain exactly how you define “pitbull”. Also, please see post [post 166](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5399494&postcount=166) and answer the two questions about crossbreds and unregistereds: how much is too much, and who and how determines what a “pitbull” is? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2004, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/184 "2004-10-24T07:17:31Z")
> [@](#): > > CarnalK, it’s very gracious of you to determine that something that isn’t going to affect you negatively in any manner isn’t particularly harmful. Tell that to the people that lose their dogs. As seems to be the regular case, any ban would be grandfathered in. People won’t have to put down dogs they already own. P.S. hint: wait until I insult you before you cry “ad hominem”. You look less like a moron that way. (there you go 😉 ) ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2004, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/185 "2004-10-24T08:19:43Z")
“Dog bite” is not politically correct. When a person is attached by a dangerous dog, one is supposed to use the term “ad hominem”. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2004, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/186 "2004-10-24T14:26:30Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > Wrong. No dog breed needs training to be dangerous, all they need is the right set of circumstances. It is true, however, that pitbulls are generally dog-aggressive rather than people-aggressive. Of course any random dog can be dangerous, however we have taken great measures to reduce that; even creating specific "friendly’ breeds. That doesn’t mean that extra measures shouldn’t be taken when dealing with a known danger. Look at like this, any food can be “dangerous” under the right circumstances, however we strive to reduce that risk. That “potential” risk, is not the same; nor should be treated the same as clugging down a bottle of poison, which is more of certainly. > [@](#): > > Ah, so you admit that you’re rehashing the same, old, tired lines - but this is _different_! THIS time it’s REAL! I don’t believe i am and it is different. > [@](#): > > You treat them _exactly_ like any other “aggressive” breed - socialize them thoroughly from an early age, establish and maintain dominance, and treat them decently. No magic wand, just some work. All aggressive breeds have been bred to attack other dogs? You wouldn’t make any modifications in how you treat a Mastiff and Pitbull or Great Dane or Jack Russell? You wouldn’t adjust your training to each breed’s strong and weak points…they’re all the same? > [@](#): > > OK, I’ll bite. Exactly what is the history of the pitbull? Details, please. What magic was performed that no one currently living can pull off? You gave a timeline of FIVE years. FIVE years to do this.[this](http://www.pitbullbreeders.net/history.html) > [@](#): > > But we’re not talking about the people fighting dogs - that’s a completely separate topic. We’re talking about Mr. Knucklehead, who buys the current “scary dog of the week”. Where do you think mr. knuckle-head is getting his dogs from? A breeder? No, they are the runts of the litter from the dog fighters. THAT’s the problem! The pool of dogs is corrupted by the cast offs of fighting dogs. Of course there’s going to be problem with overbreeding of any breed and that will increase problems with any breed. BUT those other breeds were starting from a different place. > [@](#): > > Are you trying to tell me that pitbulls weren’t available to Mr. Knucklehead until the mid 1990s, when they suddenly became popular? They bought Shepherds and Dobies and Rotts because pitbulls only came into existence 15 years ago? That kinda crosses up your argument that it takes hundreds of years to breed 'em, doncha think? Your argument has been that if Pits were banned, “they” would switch to another breed. Which would be true if the people who were choosing Pits, were doing so because they like the way the dog looked and NOT performed. There is an industry built around dog-fighting, there is a lifestyle that spins off of that. You can not ignore that. While the dobbie 15, 20 years ago was part of a similar “image”, the dogs weren’t being fought or considered money making property; like the Pit is. Those other breeds were status symbols and like all status symbols shift… The Pit has _transcended_ that. Not only do they convey status, they generate income. They allow a segment of society, the illusion of importance. In order to replace that, you would have to replace the Pit with a breed that can replace it **in the pit.** Because **that’s** where the popularity of the Pit started. It didn’t start in movie or a tv show, like most fad dogs do, this started on the streets and that’s were it’s going to end. You can’t breed that in FIVE years. > [@](#): > > Ok, you agree that banning isn’t the answer, but you’re arguing for it… I would be interested in hearing what you think the answer should be. I’m not arguing for banning. What I would do is quite simple, create a set of rules for ALL dog owners regardless of breed. Period. The rules would be the same for a Lab or a Mastiff. Dog breaks rules, owner pays the price. > [@](#): > > And I’ll ask you too, although I will restrict the question since you say you’re opposed to banning and just seem to have some beef about pitbulls… This is a thread about Pits, I don’t see why discussing reasons why people who are advocating banning _may_ have some valid points, means I have a beef with Pits. I don’t. You can ask _Captain Biggles_, he’ll tell you. > [@](#): > > …please explain exactly how you define “pitbull”. …and answer the two questions about crossbreds and unregistereds: how much is too much, and who and how determines what a “pitbull” is? And that’s the reason why a ban wouldn’t work. Any system of enforcement that relies heavy on, " I know one, when I see one…" is destined to fail. Further the last thing we need is to make the Pit **more** taboo, more exciting by banning it. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2004, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/187 "2004-10-24T19:47:38Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > If none of the pro-ban crowd will come back to answer my questions, … > [@](#): > > OK, so you want to ban dogs bred and physically adapted to fighting/killing. Still waiting for the answer to that question that’s been floating around for several pages now: which dogs are those? Read post 45 & 52 again. I say “again” as you claim to have read the whole thread- I’m seeing little evidence of that however. ---
**Author:** ![Cerri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3bc359/32.png) [@Cerri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerri)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/188 "2004-10-25T02:41:03Z")
The only things I saw mentioned in posts 48 and 52 were Pit Bulls and Rotties. First of all, Rottweilers weren’t bred as fighting dogs. The Rottweiler breed was originally bred for herding work and pulling carts. Now, they are descended (as best we can tell) from Roman Fighting Dogs, but that heritage covers a great many breeds, including Mastiffs and Bulldogs. As for pit bulls. There _is_ no breed just called “pit bulls”. What people call pit bulls include the American Pit Bull Terrier, the English Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the English Staffordshire Bull Terrier. This doesn’t include the many cross-breeds that have some form of pit in them. Chinese Shar-Peis, (which were originally bred as fighting dogs) as well as Shar-Pei crossbreeds can also bear similar looks to a pit, and are often confused for such, as many of them grow out of the disctintive wrinkles of puppyhood. Tosa Inus, Chow Chows and Akitas also fall under the heading of “dogs that were bred to fight”. Then you have Mastiffs and their various sub-breeds, bred as guard dogs used to catch and hold poachers. These include Mastiffs, Neopolitan Mastiffs (also called Italian Mastiffs), the Dogue de Bordeaux and the larger Doguin de Bordeaux (French Mastiffs), the Fila Brasilario (Brazilian Mastiff), the Dogo Argentina (Argentinian Mastiff), the Presa Canario (Canary Island Dog), and the Cane Corso. ALL of these dogs were bred for either guard work or fighting other animals/hunting large prey. So again…are you, **CarnalK** , saying should all these dogs be banned? Keeping in mind of course, that the breeds responsible for 66% of fatal dog attacks, as listed in an earlier cite of mine by the CDC, are such dogs as Labs, Retrievers, etc. This is entirely discounting the fact that criminals who keep such dogs for nefarious purposes aren’t known for adhering to laws in the first place, and will most likely simply ignore any ban of their particular breed and move on to another “dangerous breed”, and the people who will be most harmed by such bans will be the responsible owners who register their dogs. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/189 "2004-10-25T03:50:40Z")
No I’m calling for a temp ban on Pit bulls and Rotweillers like I said in those posts. How many times you guys gonna ask me the same question immediately after reading my answer? ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/190 "2004-10-25T04:50:04Z")
Ah, **CarnalK** , ya got me. That wasn’t a strict adhom - you didn’t attack me, personally, just the group I’m associated with in this thread (i.e., pitbull owners). I believe that’s technically still an adhom, but whatever. I shoulda stuck with my first thought and just said “namecalling”. Either way, when that’s the best means of argument you can find, you’re in trouble, neh? In post 36, you posted cites that included pitbulls, rottweilers, german shepherds, huskies, malamutes, dobermans, chows, great danes, st bernards and akitas. In posts 45, 52, 61 and 62 you talked about pits and rotties. In 45, 52, 57, and 98, you talked about various graduated restrictions, including size, weight, and level of dangerousness. In post 61, you noted that the CDC statistics showed pitbull problems dropping and rottweiler problems increasing, and said that you thought that “the popularity of pits outside the fight world is leading to a breeding out of some of the aggressiveness”. In post 55, you admitted that “Defining the breeds would also be tricky, particularly with the hybrid(I mean all of them) pitbulls” and pawned off the problem of breed identification with this charming bon mot: “those expert dog breeders/enthusiasts are fascist lunatics- I’m sure they could develop a system of breed defintion”. In post 98, you admitted that “the breed specs would have to be continually updated” and that "I fear dog fashions will continue to change as you say.” So it’s not like you’ve exactly made clear what dogs you want to ban, nor how you think a ban could reasonably be implemented given the identification problems repeatedly brought up. To the contrary, you’ve been all over the map about which dogs you mean, have admitted that identifying dogs as a particular breed would be problematic, and that a ban wouldn’t work because of breed-switching. **MelCthefirst** has listed several dog breeds in his postings, including rottweilers, pitbulls, “staffies” (Staffordshire Bull Terriers, I think), and some type of “Japanese fighting dog” (Tosa would be my guess). **Muffin** has been fairly consistent, sticking with pitbulls and rottweilers, although he seems to possibly have some confusion as to which is which. **mks57** has also stuck to pits and rotts as named breeds. I’d think they, at least, would be able to answer the question “which breeds to ban”, but it certainly doesn’t sound like they’re just talking about pitbulls. None of you have answered the questions about crossbreds, percentage of ancestry, unregistered dogs, or who would make final determinations in individual cases. ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/191 "2004-10-25T05:00:09Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > No I’m calling for a temp ban on Pit bulls and Rotweillers like I said in those posts. > How many times you guys gonna ask me the same question immediately after reading my answer? Whups, didn’t see you’d posted in while I was writing, sorry. So it’s not just pitbulls you want to ban, but also Rottweilers. Thank you. Now you just have to explain exactly what a pitbull is, and we’ll be getting somewhere. Can you do that, please? That will, of course, still leave these questions: > [@](#): > > With cross-breeds, how much “bad dog” is too much? 50%? 25%? 1 drop? > > And who gets to decide just what a mutt is made of? Citizens panicked by rumors of killer breeds? Neighbors feuding over other issues that decide to use breed-bans for revenge (a tactic not uncommon around here with code enforcement)? Police officers? Judges? City officials? Animal control? Veterinarians? Please note that the first five generally don’t have any specific knowledge in this area, the next-to-last may or may not know anything about dog breeds, and the latter will tell you there’s no sure method to determine parentage, they’re just guessing. > > \<…\> > > What happens when the owner denies that his unregistered dog is breed “X”? How does one prove/disprove this? > > Also, if the ban doesn’t achieve the expected results (e.g., the 30% figure previously discussed, or something similar) due to the problems previously mentioned (i.e., popular breed switching), will you just extend it to include the new “dangerous breeds”? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/192 "2004-10-25T05:59:45Z")
I’m not gonig to keep repeating myself. Just read the first 2 pages if you want anymore answers outta me. ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/193 "2004-10-25T06:05:59Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > The idea simply hasn’t been refuted. I see people crying about dog rights, bad owners, and how people might get around the laws. That’s not refuted. Noone is saying a ban is a panacea so your objections are fucking noted. Sorry for just now getting around to this, had to pull the info together. Hey, **CarnalK** , I pulled these from YOUR cites: [AnimalAdvocates.com](http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm) and the [CDC](http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm): > [@](#): > > There is an 8 out of 10 chance that a biting dog is male. So it seems that it would be much more effective, and most certainly easier to implement, to advocate banning all male dogs. Why aren’t you arguing for that? > [@](#): > > # Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner most often is responsible – not the breed, and not the dog. > > # An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above). > > # Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be likely to bite. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack. Gosh, that’s exactly what we’ve been saying. > [@](#): > > Three categories of strategies can be considered for preventing dog bites: > > 1. Owner and public education. Dog owners, through proper selection, socialization, training, care, and treatment of a dog, can reduce the likelihood of owning a dog that will eventually bite (7). Male and unspayed/unneutered dogs are more likely to bite than are female and spayed/neutered dogs (7). Educational and prevention efforts should be directed at parents and children. Veterinarians and pediatricians should address strategies for bite prevention, including the need for appropriate supervision of children. Other strategies include dissemination of information on preventing bites (see box(Table\_B1)), school-based educational programs on bite prevention and canine behavior, and educational programs regarding responsible dog selection, ownership, and training. > 2. Animal control at the community level. Animal-control programs should be supported, and laws for regulating dangerous or vicious dogs should be promulgated and enforced vigorously (8). For example, in this report, 30% of DBRFs resulted from groups of owned dogs that were free roaming off the owner’s property. Some of these deaths might have been prevented through more stringent animal-control laws and enforcement. **Although some breeds were disproportionately represented in the fatal attacks described in this report, the representation of breeds changes over time (Table\_1). As a result, targeting a specific breed may be unproductive; a more effective approach may be to target chronically irresponsible dog owners (9).** > 3. Bite reporting. Evaluation of prevention efforts requires improved surveillance for dog bites. Dog bites should be reported as required by local or state ordinances, and reports of such incidents should include information about the circumstances of the bite; ownership, breed, sex, age, spay/neuter status, and history of prior aggression of the animal; and the nature of restraint before the bite incident. (Emphasis mine.) Hmmm, interesting, not one word supporting breed-bans, quite the opposite. They did suggest, however, owner education and animal control laws. Boy, that sounds strangely familiar, somehow. Here’s a couple of links from **blackhobyah** : the [CDC](http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf) and [AVMA](http://www.avma.org/pubhlth/dogbite/dogbite.pdf). > [@](#): > > Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites. ( J Am Vet Med Assoc2000;217:836–840) > [@](#): > > An often-asked question is what breed or breeds of dogs are most “dangerous”? This inquiry can be prompted by a serious attack by a specific dog, or it may be the result of media-driven portrayals of a specific breed as “dangerous.”12,13 Although this is a common concern, singling out 1 or 2 breeds for control can result in a false sense of accomplishment. Doing so ignores the true scope of the problem and will not result in a responsible approach to protecting a community’s citizens. > [@](#): > > Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite. Invariably the numbers will show that dogs from popular large breeds are a problem. This should be expected, because big dogs can physically do more damage if they do bite, and any popular breed has more individuals that could bite. Dogs from small breeds also bite and are capable of causing severe injury. There are several reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds. First, the breed of the biting dog may not be accurately recorded, and mixed-breed dogs are commonly described as if they were purebreds. Second, the actual number of bites that occur in a community is not known, especially if they did not result in serious injury. Third, the number of dogs of a particular breed or combination of breeds in a community is not known, because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed, and existing licensing data is then incomplete. Breed data likely vary between communities, states, or regions, and can even vary between neighborhoods within a community. So, the CDC and the American Veterinary Medicine Association both outright state that there are serious problems with breed bans. I could quote most of the article, which discusses at length the reason that breed bans are both ineffective and impractical, but I guess you know better than they do, huh? Here’s another link from **blackhobyah** , the [Washington City Paper](https://secure.washingtoncitypaper.com/cgi-bin/Archive/abridged2.bat?path=q:%5CDocRoot/2004/040409/mastif&search=presa&SearchString=presa&next.x=100&next.y=18&AuthorLastName=&IssueDate=mm%2Fdd%2Fyyyy&SelectYear=All): > [@](#): > > …according to Rodney Taylor, chief of the county’s Animal Management Division, the ban has had a negligible effect on safety, because among other reasons, would-be pit-bull owners are turning to other breeds. Wow, where have you heard that before? Now then, **CK** , who hasn’t bothered to read the thread? These points and more have been made repeatedly, by many different posters, with cites. You really need to come up with a better argument than doing the “la la la I can’t hear you” schtick and repeating your calls for a breed ban. ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/194 "2004-10-25T06:10:49Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I’m not gonig to keep repeating myself. Just read the first 2 pages if you want anymore answers outta me. Cross-posted again, I see. 🙂 OK, I’ll accept that. You don’t have any answers, you don’t have any real arguments, you’re just going to stick by your guns in the face of all evidence and reason. Like I said, it’s the “la la la I can’t hear you” routine, repeated ad nauseum. Whatever floats your boat, dude. G’nite all, I’ve stayed up WAY too late playing here! ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/195 "2004-10-25T06:34:05Z")
Look, you said you read the whole thread then claimed I refused to answer your already answered questions. If you are honestly so deluded that you think you’ve won this exchange by force of reason you’re a twit. If you think you’ve won this exchange because I can’t keep up with your mass re-typing skills and just tapped patience then you are correct (and an ass). ---
**Author:** ![Cerri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3bc359/32.png) [@Cerri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerri)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/196 "2004-10-25T15:28:26Z")
I don’t think we won because of those reasons. I think we won because we have scientific data, data from Animal Control experts, law enforecment officials, vetinarians, and the CDC backing up our argument, whereas all you’ve brought to the table is a knee-jerk reaction of “OMG! BAN PITS!” Oh, and you want to include Rottweilers too…be sure to tell the owners of the thousands of Rottweilers that work as Therapy Dogs, Police dogs, and Search and Rescue Dogs how dangerous their animals are…never mind there were only 33 fatal Rottweiler attacks that occured between '91 and '98- several of those years in which the registered number of Rotts were in the Top 10 of AKC registrations. To help you try and calculate the numbers for that, in 1999 alone, 41,776 Rottweilers were registered, in a year in which their AKC registration popularity _declined_ from 4th place to 8th place. And that doesn’t count the “backyard breeders” dogs, that’s just AKC registered Rotts. [http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/dog/LA/Chirichigno1.htm](http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/dog/LA/Chirichigno1.htm) [http://www.akc.org/breeds/regstats\_pg2.cfm](http://www.akc.org/breeds/regstats_pg2.cfm) Breed-specific legislation is nothing new. It has been tried in many cities, suburbs, and even other countries. The attacks have not stopped in spite of this, and they won’t, because you’re not fixing the root of the problem, which 95% of the time (I’ll grant you some dogs are capable of psychosis, no matter the breed) is irresponsible ownership. Your solution is to destroy, and ban the hundreds of thousands of Rottweilers in this country, many of them trained for a job as they were bred to do, such as search/rescue, police work, guard dogs, and Therapy dogs, not to mention loving family pets, with the data of 33 fatal deaths attributable to Rotts in a seven year span as your backing. It’s a ridiculous suggestion based on that, and as you’ve been told repeatedly, one that ultimately does not and will not work. As for those who “know a pit bull when I see em”. Found an interesting test for you to take. (I wish and welcome dog lovers to take it too. _grin_) [http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html](http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html) [Only one of the pictures below features the real American PitBull Terrier. Take the test to see if you can find it. To find the breed of a dog, click on image. Note that there are no mixes or rescue dogs of unknown background who’s breed could be debated in the page. All dogs have been picked in breeder’s web sites and should be good representatives of their breed. Breed misidentification is a scary thing in a time breed specific legislation is growing… Pit Bull dogs are often blamed for dog attacks that may very well have been caused by an another breed…]([http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html](http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html)) ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/197 "2004-10-25T15:53:29Z")
I got it on the first try…problem is I didn’t think it was. I was trying to see how much “Pit” **Captain Biggles** had in him. Who knew? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/198 "2004-10-25T15:54:34Z")
> [@Cerri](#): > > As for those who “know a pit bull when I see em”. Found an interesting test for you to take. (I wish and welcome dog lovers to take it too. _grin_) How embarrassing. I picked the Bull Terrier. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/199 "2004-10-25T16:01:39Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > I got it on the first try…problem is I didn’t think it was. I was trying to see how much “Pit” **Captain Biggles** had in him. > > Who knew? Um maybe not, Biggles has a longer coat, head looks about right…I may have to post a pic and let the audience decide. Good link. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/200 "2004-10-25T16:32:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Oh, and you want to include Rottweilers too…be sure to tell the owners of the thousands of Rottweilers that work as Therapy Dogs, Police dogs, and Search and Rescue Dogs how dangerous their animals are…never mind there were only 33 fatal Rottweiler attacks that occured between '91 and '98- several of those years in which the registered number of Rotts were in the Top 10 of AKC registrations. Well see, that is an actually useful point to bring up. I wouldn’t have thought Rottweilers were ever in the top ten of ownership so it makes their attack statisitics more reasonable when compared with other breeds. I think my point still holds for Pits. (BTW do you think mentioning about their use as police dogs strengthens your case?) Plenty of cities have “defined the breed”, it may not be neat, pretty or “fair” but it gets done. If there is a little unfair pregidous towards similar looking animals I don’t really care. I don’t really worry about doggy racism. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988.md?page=11)