Seems to me that France would be an excellent test case for BSL in America. If dog bites and DBRF in France go down dramatically in the next few years then that would provide vindication to supporters of BSL.
On the other hand if dog bites and DBRF stays about the same or increase it could be from multiple factors
The barbarians who should not have a gerbil much less a dog have moved on to another breed.
Pitbulls are the problem and people are still breeding them illegally.
Pitbulls were not the problem and were unfairly targeted.
Which ever of the three that is turned out to be it would prove BSL to be innefective.
People in America with other types of dogs should take heed at France’s action post pitbull ban. I know that we have had at least one poster in a different thread who owned a Boxer that was anti-pitbull. In France now his dog would be a class 2 and he would have to jump through hoops in order to keep him.
There have been various breeds that at one time or another were considered dangerous, or “bad ass” or whatever you want to call it. Dobermans, german shepherds, bull terriers, rottweilers, staffordshires, pit bulls, chows, etc etc etc etc.
The problem is not the breed itself, it’s the owners. Given a proper home environment and decent treatment, a dog of any breed can be friendly, loyal, and worth having. However, there will always be “those people” who for one reason or another cause the dog to be vicious, either through stupidity, or on purpose. Of course, they won’t have a Yorkie or Chihauha, they want a strong dog, a “bad ass” dog.
A lot of news organizations see to use the mantra, “If it bit, it was a Pit.” You’ll see a lot of stories in which the initial report says “pit bull” and later reports say “dog,” once it’s been pointed out to them it wasn’t a pit bull. Other breeds don’t sell papers/grab mouseclicks – pit bull attacks have become the WMDs of dog stories…everyone’s afraid of them, enough to start a war, but when we actually look, there’s nothing there.
Regarding the livestock-killing: don’t get carried away by the words “pit bull.” Any unattended dogs left outside to guard drug fields would band into packs and go in search of food. Frankly, pit bulls make terrible guard dogs and are just as disinclined to attack humans as there were when discussed earlier in this thread. The drug farmers would do better with a guarding breed; imagine how scary groups of man-killing mastiffs might be. In the meantime, while it’s a shame that the pit bulls in the story are killing animals we wanted to kill ourselves, please don’t demonize them for natural behavior – lots of pets would kill other pets/animals if given half a chance, and yet we don’t see screaming headlines. Labrador Retrievers would kill my birds; my birds would kill someone’s lucky cricket; Rat Terriers would kill someone’s beloved pet rat; the rat in turn would kill pet or laboratory mice; a cat would kill…well, everything it could; even someone’s aquarium fish would kill some little child’s “sea monkeys.” We have ferrets, snakes, falcons, tarantulas, a thousand breeds of dog, monkeys, rodents, sea anemones, lizards, frogs, ant farms, and more – I have seen online an anteater kept as a household pet who would eat that ant farm. LOTS of predators would, and do, prey on other people’s pets or livestock. Why are pit bulls alone in taking heat for it?
Anyone interested in finding out about actual fighting pits and whether they are necessarily, inherently dangerous should read What Happened to Micheal Vick’s Dogs. It’s a five page Sports Illustrated article that might just open a few minds.
Suffice it to say that despite being horribly abused, and forced to fight to survive, most of the dogs have been rehabilitated, and are happily living with their human families.
This is why I think municipalities should adopt restrictions on all large dogs. Not bans, but rules to prevent irresponsible owners from keeping large dogs of any breed. There should be mandatory obedience training, for one thing, and stricter penalties for violating leash laws. I would also prohibit people who have been convicted of a violent crime from owning large dogs at all.
These sorts of restrictions should be made by cities and towns, I think.
Which is why dog safety laws should have nothing to do with the breed, and everything to do with the owner.
The owner of the dog should be 100% responsible for his dog’s actions, and be punished as if he personally performed those actions. Your Chihuahua nips someone’s ankle, you get punished like you nipped someone’s ankle. Your Pit Bull, or Rott, or Doberman or DeadlyDogoftheDay rips someone’s throat out and mauls him to death, you get punished like you ripped someone’s throat out and beat them to death.
Screw laws that say you can’t have this dog or that dog, put people in jail for decades because of their poorly trained dogs, and people may start thinking twice about what dogs they get, and how they train them.
Seriously, any dog breed or mixed breed can be guilty of running stock. When I had acreage and birds, there was a Basset Hound that lived up the hill that loved to come down and harrass my chickens. One day we came home from the store to find scores of dead and dying birds scattered all around our dooryard - I never found out whether it was that Basset but I wouldn’t have been surprised.
I was kind of wondering why exactly they had a mountain lion. And how–like, did they find it as an orphaned cub? Most people don’t just go get mountain lions for no reason.
Most likely they got it from a private breeder, or overstocked cubs from a big cat institute. The Op mentioned that they took certain precautions which sound compliant with most exotic laws that I can recall. That means they were probably permitted to have the cat, not that a permit excuses mutilating an animal in the futile pursuit of safety.:mad:
Are you completely insane?? Find me any study, any statistic, any source, any cite that would support the notion that the majority of American Pit Bull Terrier owners own a dog that is a demonstrable danger to the public. The slimmest majority will do – 50.00001% of owners.
How about this: pit bull type dogs are perhaps responsible for 69% of lethal dog attacks. That leaves 31% of lethal dog attacks perpetrated by other breeds. Should we ban each of those, too? A few years ago, a Yorkshire terrier attacked a sleeping infant and killed it. Time for a breed ban?
Historically, they were bred to fight DOGS. As has already been pointed out, during a dog fight, the (human) handlers of the two dogs would be in the ring, as would a (human) referee. Any one of these three people would reach in and handle the dogs during the fight. A dog which couldn’t be trusted not to be human-aggressive couldn’t be used in the ring and would not be bred. Thus, the breed’s dog-fighting history is actually a point in its favor when it comes to the question of aggression towards humans. Continuing to cite it as a reason to fear the breed as dangerous to humans is woefully, pitifully ignorant.
Again, logically this position requires banning every breed whose members (or whose mixes) are responsible for human deaths. This is irrational in the extreme.
As I recall—bear in mind that this was a loooong time ago, when I was a teenager, so my memories might be a bit unclear—the grandpa of the family found the remains of a mountain lion (almost certainly the cub’s mother) while on a fishing trip in…Colorado? Maybe Montana? The next day he spotted the orphaned cub and, heart overriding brains, caught it and brought it back home to Tejas.
The Cramers were a big, weird family with entirely too much money. They lived in the central Texas hill country near a little town called Llano on a 30-40 acre chunk of land with a huge rambling old ranch house, several horses, goats, dogs, cats…and the aforementioned mountain lion.
The mountain lion ‘officially’ lived in a fenced-in enclosure about 20’X30’-ish and about 8’ high. It had a chain link ceiling, a concrete floor covered in carpet scraps, and a huge dog (mountain lion) house. More often than not the mountain lion was in the house behaving just like any other cat. It was raised around the family (2-3 generations of rich, eccentric, rural Texans) and with the Cramers numerous dogs and cats.
When I first met the animal, she was already about 6-8 years old; fat from table scraps, lazy and sweet as pie. As I understand it, she had to be put down for health reasons at about 12 years old.
Oh, and to the best of my knowledge, she never hurt any person or animal other than the occasional lizard or bug.
I would actually probably support breed bans if the breed in question could be clearly identified. The idea that certain breeds could be inherently more inclined to attack people is perfectly plausible, although not exactly proven. But most of the dog attack statistics that I’ve seen appear to rely on the breed identifications of accidental witnesses, police, and other people who presumably wouldn’t know a pit bull from pit beef. (I sure can’t identify them by sight.) And “pit bull type dogs” is a completely meaningless category. Two dog breeds that look superficially similar cannot be assumed to be genetically related.
Anecdote: my family pet, when I was a kid, was a big, mostly black mutt whose parents were reportedly a Labrador Retriever and a German Shepherd. He was totally harmless–wouldn’t even attack squirrels, let alone other dogs. The one time he ever bit someone he was under the influence of drugs. We never let him run loose. But he was large, and he had a big roundish head, and a deep voice, and he liked to bark at mailmen and other visitors. Some people were afraid of him, and some even thought he was a pit bull.
Now suppose a pit bull ban has been enacted in a community, and local resident Joe Dogowner happens to own a clone of my old dog. His neighbor calls the police and tells them Mr. Dogowner is keeping a pit bull. The police come to Joe Dogowner’s house and confront him.
“No,” says Joe. “He’s not a pit bull. He’s a mutt. The man who sold him to me says his parents were a Lab and a German Shepherd.”
What do the cops do? It seems to me they basically have three options, corresponding to three different enforcement models:
They call in a dog breed expert, who says, “Nope. That’s not a pit bull.” The cops go away. We might call this “narrow nforcement”.
They look at the dog and say, “Looks like a pit bull or pit bull type dog. Sorry, pal.” They arrest Joe Dogowner. This would be “broad enforcement”.
They order a genetic test of the dog. The test determines that this dog is genetically most similar to a Labrador Retriever or a German Shepherd, but also lists four other breeds that it could be related to, including American Staffordshire Terrier. This would be “scientific enforcement”, but it doesn’t present the police with any obvious course of action.
Can you see why I find all these options unsatisfactory? Narrow enforcement results in a ban on purebreds only, broad enforcement results in a ban on all short-haired, fat-headed dogs, and scientific enforcement just confuses the police. It seems to me that trying to enforce a ban on “pit bull type dogs” would be like trying to enforce a ban on “squash type vegetables”. And we all know the result of a controversial law that’s hard to enforce consistently, don’t we? Yes, that’s right: lawsuits. Lawsuits pouring down like rain.
Advocates of pit bull bans, how would you deal with the enforcement problems?