So, your desires are more important than everyone else’s who might own an SUV?
I was speaking of currently, as in “are there any breeds being bred to attack humans”.
Can you give an example of the pro Pit Bull side cherry picking a fact or study?
You mean my “desire” not to be killed or seriously injured? You’re damn right.
I don’t care what kind of POS you use for your daily transportation, as long as you don’t try to dump its excess negative effects on me and the rest of society.
Seriously, my mom’s dog is a pit bull (more or less), but we thought she looked like an Italian Greyhound when she was little. Runty, wasp-waisted, fast, strong for her size–& afraid of strangers, lately. Not exactly an attack dog. She’s rambuctious, but she’s more like a beagle than a Rottweiler.
I don’t own a SUV, or a POS actually - I drive a relatively new Volvo wagon. However, I do find it interesting that you want to ban all SUVs based on the bad driving habits of your neighbor. What about full sized pickups? Semis? Step vans? Do you think they should be banned too?
FWIW, I think a majority of people who have SUVs don’t need them, and a goodly number of them don’t drive them well, but I would never seek to ban them all due to the actions of a minority. Same with “pitbulls”.
I am not a dog owner.
I’ve observed that the anti-Pit crowd seems to willfully ignore the fact that “pit-bull type” is basically equivalent to “mutt who bit someone”.
I learned that I can’t really tell a pit bull from any other short-haired, square-headed, medium-to-large dog.
At the same time, a biggish dog bred for fighting would cause a lot more damage with a bite than a crazed Yorkie. And in my experience most dogs of any kind are not particularly well-trained: they jump on people, chase stuff, get off of their leashes (or aren’t leashed at all). So how does society protect itself from idiots who don’t take their pet ownership responsibilities seriously? It’s not like we can ban lazy morons from owning dogs.
No, I don’t think Pit Bulls are the devil. Breed bans might not be a great option for controlling bites and such. The problem is, I don’t think I’ve seen any good plans to deal with the problem.
For the record, the most ill-tempered, snappish dog I ever met was a Standard Poodle. Nasty, nasty animal (with horrible owners - surprise, surprise).
Stop putting words in my mouth, jerk.
I’m sure you wont mind if I open a nitroglycerin production and storage facility next to your house.
My area isn’t zoned for it, however if it was, so long as you took the proper safety precautions, go for it.
While you’re at it, open a Nuclear power plant too.
A more relevant question would be " are there any breeds plagued with aggressive traits currently bred to eliminate aggression ?"
And that is the crux of the problem right there - any laws that are breed specific punish everyone for the sins of a few. We already have laws in place that could easily deal with the problem of dog bites, but they aren’t really enforced, and when they are the penalites are so low that it hardly matters. So the government takes the “easy” route and bans anything that might in some way possibly be a threat and individual rights be damned. And it really doesn’t help that PETA and the HSUS have big war treasuries and plenty of influence.
Its the same thing with the SUVs, and children for that matter. Laws all around for managing these things and keeping them from becoming dangerous, yet we still have idiots driving SUVS and idiots raising children.
I thought WF Tomba had some pretty good suggestions. Require mandatory obedience training and owner education classes as part of the licensing/registration process for all larger dog breeds. Hold people strictly liable for any damage their pets do.
Will the lazy morons of the world obey those laws? Probably not - but they could be prosecuted and punished severely when they violate them. (Heck, it’s not like they’re obeying leash laws or laws against dogfighting right now, and they’re not likely to obey any breed-specific ban laws either. Prosecuting them for being asshats is probably the best we can do in any circumstances.) And the non-asshole, merely ignorant pet owners would get the education and training they so desperately need.
Mature, that. If you think I have misunderstood your position, how about you say so and explain where?
As long as said facility is no more dangerous than the average SUV or “pit”, sure. However, I’m thinking that you realize that to be an extreme exaggeration.
Yup, quite a few. Altho, that would depend on the definition of “aggressive” since the general public tends to use that word incorrectly, but even under their broad use of it, the answer is still yes. For an example http://judgesl.com/Doberman/HISTORY.html
Aren’t pet owners already liable for damage caused by their pets? I’m sure I’ve seen several Judge Judy’s based on such a concept.
Anyways, theoretically, I do think those suggestions would be a good place to start. I just don’t see there being enough interest to actually implement them. Most people probably don’t care - they just don’t want to worry about “scary” dogs.
There’s more to this “ban the scary ones” than meets the eye.
PETA and HSUS have been mentioned upthread, but their role is seen as tangential. This is not the case. Both organizations believe that it is unethical for humans to own ANY animals. PETA is the more vocal, actually expressing this belief routinely, at least to sympathizers. HSUS couches its agenda more carefully. However, over time there is quite a degree of interchangability between the board directors and the major supporters of both organizations. And the expenditures of both organizations are directed overwhelmingly toward political activism, not to hands-on programs that actually benefit animals.
These groups take the long view. Every ban works toward their ultimate goal. So they actively participate in, and pump up the rhetoric about, “banning” debates across the country. Every scary animal story in the media is the trigger for a local call for banning whatever animal was involved. And every such debate brings more money into PETA and HSUS coffers. So in this jurisdiction today it’s pit-type dogs. In another jurisdiction where an escaped pet snake is found in a neighborhood, there are hysterical calls to ban ownership of reptiles. Elsewhere the discovery of a tiger kept by its owner in a New York apartment is used to trumpet calls for further restriction of exotic cats. This despite the fact that a whole list of Federal and State and City violations already apply to such stupidity. And on and on. Every ban is seen as a victory for the ultimate goal. And every debate is a step forward in the war.
Even when a ban is not forthcoming, the very debate sensitizes the community to the next scary animal story. And so the next “animal attack” is even more widely reported, and more vigorously argued. It matters not, from this perspective, what kind of animal is involved. People everywhere (including some in this thread) want to be safe, and are willing to accept bans as a means toward that end. The result is a snowball of fear turning into an avalanche of hysteria. Followed by some new regulation intended to assuage that fear.
There are now, because of “incidents” sometimes nearby and sometimes distant, communities where the possession of “constricting snakes” is banned. People were, rightly or wrongly, afraid of some neighbor losing his giant python. “Think of the children!!” So now it is illegal in such jurisdictions for someone to possess a common milk snake, a colorful little native constrictor that grows to a maximum of less than two feet in length, a diameter smaller than your pinky, and could only be a danger to a mouse.
The same kind of illogic is applied to dog breeds.
We cannot settle here the ongoing debate over nature versus nurture. Suffice it to say that both are operative. Some dog breeds are indeed more agressive than others. And some unethical or stupid or lazy owners nurture or ignore those tendencies.
But in reality, aggression is a relatively uncommon trait in larger dog breeds. This only makes sense-- a large, nasty dog is less likely to be kept around, or be bred, than one of mild temperament. There is much truth to the argument offered upthread that even working and guarding breeds have to be worked or handled by someone. They may be bold, even assertive and dominant, but they must also be trainable and willing to submit.
Small dogs though are frequently nasty and aggressive. The owners think it’s cute and endearing. So a degree of aggression is maintained in breeds like Yorkies and Jack Russel Terriers that would not be tolerated in a large dog.
These nasty little creatures can be bred, accidentally or deliberately, with medium sized and even large dogs. This makes it virtually impossible to “breed out” aggression in dogs. And likely contributes to the problem with “pit-type” dogs, these often being blocky, medium sized mutts rather than actual Am Stafs or Pits. If their recent ancestry includes some Chihuahua, aggression, even foolhardy aggression, may well be present.
ETA- Oh bog, I’m gonna catch it from the small dog owners! Let me say that not all Yorkies, JRTs and Chihuahuas are nasty. I’ve known some really nice ones. And I’ve also known some really sweet, wonderful pits (of varying breed purity). Still, I’ve known far more snarly little dogs than the other kind. And far, far more sweet and sensitive pits than aggressive ones. Go figure.