# Pit Bulls (continued) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 8, 2013, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714 "2013-10-08T19:18:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 42
**Author:** ![all\_timestamps\_displayed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@all\_timestamps\_displayed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/all_timestamps_displayed)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/821 "2014-01-13T17:18:44Z")
Why is this thread being left open? To give everyone their change to participate in the smug threadshit circle jerk? Congrats you’ve silenced the opposition. This is no longer a place of fighting ignorance. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![crucible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@crucible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crucible)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/822 "2014-01-13T18:18:11Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > And from this article: How is it y’all aren’t getting it yet? The breed of dog is not the problem; the bad owners of these dogs are _creating_ the problem. How is it you can’t seem to grasp that if the dogs were not mortally dangerous, the owner’s skill or bad actions would not result in. Death and maiming of People? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/823 "2014-01-13T18:54:46Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > And from this article: How is it y’all aren’t getting it yet? The breed of dog is not the problem; the bad owners of these dogs are _creating_ the problem. Not so sure, **Shayna**. Seems to me that Pibulls are responsible for a huge percentage of the maulings. Certainly way above their tier in popularity in breeds. You honestly don’t or can’t see that? ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/824 "2014-01-13T20:50:05Z")
> [@all\_timestamps\_displayed](#): > > Why is this thread being left open? To give everyone their change to participate in the smug threadshit circle jerk? > > Congrats you’ve silenced the opposition. > > This is no longer a place of fighting ignorance. ☹ Seems the debate is continuing just fine without him. That particular opposing silenced himself by endorsing illegal activities and wishing death on people. In the fight against ignorance I’d call his banning a victory. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/825 "2014-01-13T21:37:52Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > And from this article: How is it y’all aren’t getting it yet? The breed of dog is not the problem; the bad owners of these dogs are _creating_ the problem. As much as I’d like to gloat in an admission that golden retriever owners are all just the bestest owners EVAR…we know it ain’t true. Goldens, Poodles, shih tzus…all can end up with shitty owners; only one breed is responsible for the majority of fatalities. Wonder why that is. Repeat after me: 4-5% of the dog population, 60-80% of dog bite deaths. What part of that equation do you not understand? ---
**Author:** ![LilyoftheField](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@LilyoftheField](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilyoftheField)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/826 "2014-01-13T23:12:49Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > As much as I’d like to gloat in an admission that golden retriever owners are all just the bestest owners EVAR…we know it ain’t true. > > Goldens, Poodles, shih tzus…all can end up with shitty owners; only one breed is responsible for the majority of fatalities. Wonder why that is. > > Repeat after me: 4-5% of the dog population, 60-80% of dog bite deaths. What part of that equation do you not understand? Well, see, that’s the problem - there is no ‘one breed’ for pitbulls. Do you understand that, that’s the problem? You say its one breed but there are several breeds that would meet the criteria for that ‘one breed’…and even more mixed breeds who would qualify. For all you or I know, if DNA was examined (and even that is not exact for breeds within a species) ‘goldens, poodles, shih tzus’ may or may not constitute a large percentage of the breeding for the mutts generally id’d as ‘pitbulls’. If ‘it looks like what I think a pitbull would look like’…is not really a good criterium. ---
**Author:** ![all\_timestamps\_displayed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@all\_timestamps\_displayed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/all_timestamps_displayed)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/827 "2014-01-13T23:47:18Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > Seems the debate is continuing just fine without him. That particular opposing silenced himself by endorsing illegal activities and wishing death on people. In the fight against ignorance I’d call his banning a victory. There’s no “debate” here - this is a Pit thread, a cougar58 vs SDMB Pit Bull brigade thread. His “death wish” was fucking tenuous and a pathetic black mark on the mods and posters who used silly ass word games to get a “death wish” out of that post. Why is attaching your pit bull’s leash to your neck an act of suicide, if the dog is safe and controllable? Oops… Of course you would call it a victory - it favors your side. But nobody won here, its just that the main voice of one side, and the one with the actual dog in the fight, hardy fucking har, got silenced. What a fucking victory for pit bull supporters everywhere! ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/828 "2014-01-14T00:56:14Z")
(Looking at posts on this page post- **Cougar58** ) Nope, there are still lots of “Kill 'Em All” types still in here. Debate is far from stifled. Hell, I’m only here to support the “let’s figure out what a pitbull is and get some real numbers of attacks by actual fucking pitbulls before we go off half-cocked” people because the others are dominating the conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/829 "2014-01-14T01:12:11Z")
Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Jesus. Let’s try this again. Let’s start by defining what we are debating. Are the “pitbulls are Satan’s minions come to maul us all to death” people arguing that pitbulls should be eliminated from existence? If not, what are you arguing? Just that they are dangerous and you want agreement that they are? Please be specific, if you would. IMagine that we have all agreed with you that they are dangerous. What exactly do you think the next steps should be? Thank you for your cooperation. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/830 "2014-01-14T01:35:03Z")
> [@all\_timestamps\_displayed](#): > > There’s no “debate” here - this is a Pit thread, a cougar58 vs SDMB Pit Bull brigade thread. You haven’t noticed Dragon Ash, RedFury, crucible? Pay closer attention, cougar58 was hardly alone in her ignorance. (Yes, it has come to my attention that cougar58 is a woman.) > [@](#): > > His “death wish” was fucking tenuous and a pathetic black mark on the mods and posters who used silly ass word games to get a “death wish” out of that post. Agreed. > [@](#): > > What a fucking victory for pit bull supporters everywhere! Not for me, I’m no fan of silencing people who are arguing sincerely. (vs. trollage) She was a little one-note, however, and I think that’s rather frowned upon. I never learned if she had a direct experience to inform her obsession, and I am curious. If you google “cougar58” and “pit bull” you see that she has been all over the web throwing in her nickle on the subject wherever she can. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/831 "2014-01-14T01:56:54Z")
[QUOTE=cougar58] Get some ground chuck hamburger. Roll it up with a few grapes, and 3 pcs of Orbit sugarless gum. Perfectly legal. Orbit has Xylitol in it - just 3 grams will take care of a pit. The grapes will work in parallel. Place it in your yard, where the pit bull enters. Or, better yet, since the pit bull is free to enter your yard, reciprocate by placing the laced patty in the pit bull owners yard. Fair is fair, right? [/QUOTE] I fail to see how this person being banned is a loss for the anti-pit bull advocates. I’d never want that person on my side. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/832 "2014-01-14T03:55:56Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > You haven’t noticed Dragon Ash, RedFury, crucible? Pay closer attention, cougar58 was hardly alone in her ignorance. Or yours. Isn’t that possible? > [@](#): > > She was a little one-note, however, and I think that’s rather frowned upon. I never learned if she had a direct experience to inform her obsession, and I am curious. If you google “cougar58” and “pit bull” you see that she has been all over the web throwing in her nickle on the subject wherever she can. Haven’t done it, but I take your word for it – but I do agree she was too “agenda driven”…and not always in a good way. Thre are ways, I think, reason can come into this discussion – short of killing owners or pets. > [@boytyperanma](#): > > I fail to see how this person being banned is a loss for the anti-pit bull advocates. I’d never want that person on my side. I think I agree. Reason I say that, is that although she made (very good points) it appears to me her hatred of both breed and owners made her almost impossible to speak/discuss with. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/833 "2014-01-14T04:04:28Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Or yours. Isn’t that possible? Of course it is. Can you point out the facts that I have demonstrated myself to be ignorant of, since I always want to have all the pertinent information about topics that interest me enough to debate them. I’d be obliged. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/834 "2014-01-14T04:15:11Z")
Late for me. But sure I’ll do so ASAIC ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/835 "2014-01-14T06:57:28Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Repeat after me: 4-5% of the dog population, 60-80% of dog bite deaths. What part of that equation do you not understand? What precisely do you think should be understood from this? (Can you give the source for these percentages? they don’t really match up with anything I’m reading so I would appreciate a cite.) Assuming the numbers are accurate, and using the most comprehensive data available for dog breed distribution (the Banfield data discussed earlier), fully 50% of all dogs are under 20 pounds. While such small dogs are capable, under unusual circumstances, of killing very vulnerable, defenseless people, it isn’t reasonable to consider them deadly in the same way that virtually any dog over 50 pounds is physically capable of being deadly. So that means that instead of 4-5% of the total population, including dogs that couldn’t kill if they wanted to, “pit bulls” are actually more like 8-10% of the total population of dogs that are physically capable of killing human beings. So there’s that. Secondly, there’s the 60-80%…again, this is based on what? Cites are good. Please share. Thirdly, there’s everything else that has been talked about in depth that you continue to ignore. So let me ask \*\*_you_ \*\*about what you understand. So far, no one has shown any genuine expert in dog behavior who agrees that breed-specific legislation banning certain dogs by breed is an effective strategy for preventing fatal dog attacks. On the flip side: The **Centers for Disease Control** , a completely neutral organization concerned only with health and safety of US citizens, has studied the issue and determined that breed-specific legislation banning certain breeds of dog is\*\* not \*\*an effective strategy for preventing fatal dog attacks. **The Humane Society of the United States** has studied the issue and concluded that BSL is not the answer. **The American Humane Association** has concluded the same. **The ASPCA** has also determined that BSL is not appropriate. The following **professional organizations** devoted to animals and dogs, staffed by **experts** , all agree that breed-specific legislation is wrong, it does not work, and that no breed is inherently more dangerous than any other in terms of breed-based behavior: \*\*American Kennel Club The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) The National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors Australian Veterinary Association Australian National Kennel Council Canadian Kennel Club Continental Kennel Club (USA) The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe National Animal Interest Alliance New Zealand Kennel Club Swedish Kennel Club Toronto Humane Society \*\* Given that, can you explain your basis for your apparent conviction that all of these professionals and experts, representing thousands of people and millions of hours of experience, are all wrong, but that _ **you** _ are right? (By the way, interesting factoid: the woman who was so badly mauled by a dog that she ended up the recipient of the world’s first face transplant was attacked by a Labrador Retriever.) ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/836 "2014-01-14T07:05:06Z")
Also, let’s not stray too far from the crucial point I made earlier: how does 20 people a year measure up in the grand scheme of Dangerous Things That Must Be Banned to Keep Us All Safe? Pretty weak. If we’re going to ban dangerous things that kill lots of kids disproportionately, I think we need to start with ATVs. Those things are death machines. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/837 "2014-01-14T11:35:09Z")
[What kind of dogs do the most killing? In the 8-year period from 2005 to 2012, two dog breeds accounted for 73% of the attacks that resulted in death: pit bulls and rottweilers. (DogsBite.org.) **In 2013 there have been 13 fatal dog attacks, all but one of them involving pit bulls.**](http://www.prweb.com/releases/Dog_Bite_Law/attacks_on_the_rise/prweb10725133.htm) Plenty more at source – including links to all stats. ---
**Author:** ![crucible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@crucible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crucible)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/838 "2014-01-14T12:17:38Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > What precisely do you think should be understood from this? (Can you give the source for these percentages? they don’t really match up with anything I’m reading so I would appreciate a cite.) > > Assuming the numbers are accurate, and using the most comprehensive data available for dog breed distribution (the Banfield data discussed earlier), fully 50% of all dogs are under 20 pounds. While such small dogs are capable, under unusual circumstances, of killing very vulnerable, defenseless people, it isn’t reasonable to consider them deadly in the same way that virtually any dog over 50 pounds is physically capable of being deadly. > > So that means that instead of 4-5% of the total population, including dogs that couldn’t kill if they wanted to, “pit bulls” are actually more like 8-10% of the total population of dogs that are physically capable of killing human beings. So there’s that. > > Secondly, there’s the 60-80%…again, this is based on what? Cites are good. Please share. > > Thirdly, there’s everything else that has been talked about in depth that you continue to ignore. > > So let me ask \*\*_you_ \*\*about what you understand. > > So far, no one has shown any genuine expert in dog behavior who agrees that breed-specific legislation banning certain dogs by breed is an effective strategy for preventing fatal dog attacks. > > On the flip side: > > The **Centers for Disease Control** , a completely neutral organization concerned only with health and safety of US citizens, has studied the issue and determined that breed-specific legislation banning certain breeds of dog is\*\* not \*\*an effective strategy for preventing fatal dog attacks. > > **The Humane Society of the United States** has studied the issue and concluded that BSL is not the answer. > > **The American Humane Association** has concluded the same. > > **The ASPCA** has also determined that BSL is not appropriate. > > The following **professional organizations** devoted to animals and dogs, staffed by **experts** , all agree that breed-specific legislation is wrong, it does not work, and that no breed is inherently more dangerous than any other in terms of breed-based behavior: > > \*\*American Kennel Club > The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) > The National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors > Australian Veterinary Association > Australian National Kennel Council > Canadian Kennel Club > Continental Kennel Club (USA) > The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe > National Animal Interest Alliance > New Zealand Kennel Club > Swedish Kennel Club > Toronto Humane Society > \*\* > > Given that, can you explain your basis for your apparent conviction that all of these professionals and experts, representing thousands of people and millions of hours of experience, are all wrong, but that _ **you** _ are right? > > (By the way, interesting factoid: the woman who was so badly mauled by a dog that she ended up the recipient of the world’s first face transplant was attacked by a Labrador Retriever.) First, I see the names of organizations, but no links to their specific statements that say “Breed specific legislation is not the answer to the problem of pit bulls killing people” for all I know, every one of those organizations has said precisely that, but I doubt their message is quite so clear as you claim. Second, my support of taking steps to eliminate the hazard of large dogs killing people STARTS with neutralizing pit bull type animals, sterilizing or banning around people without certification who can properly train and control them. The reason I say start is, as you, yourself, state, all dogs can kill people, particularly large dogs. But, the 90/10 rule seems to me to apply here, getting 90% of the positive return you seek for 10% of the total effort needed to reach 100%. Fear of dangerous animals is a human trait, an evolutionary positive trait. Taking dangerous animals and training them to do useful things has also been a positive evolutionary trait, at least a positive development that mankind has used. Many large dogs have specific helpful roles to play. Perhaps, at one time, the ancestors of pit bulls had important roles to play in helping control other very large, dangerous animals, such as bulls. We don’t need that useful behavior anymore, and thus, don’t need the pit bull type animal anymore. Hundreds of attacks by, disproportionately, pit bull identified animals have been chronicled in these pages and in other threads. Have the supporters of pit bulls chronicled hundreds of instances where it can be shown that having a pit bull, specifically, prevented harm to its owner? ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/839 "2014-01-14T12:55:52Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > What precisely do you think should be understood from this? (Can you give the source for these percentages? they don’t really match up with anything I’m reading so I would appreciate a cite.) Seriously? I mean…fucking seriously?:smack: Your OWN FUCKING BANFIELD CITE had pit-types accounting for 4-5% of the US dog population. So are you saying you don’t believe that pit types account for 60-80% of fatal dog attacks? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2014, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/840 "2014-01-14T14:16:51Z")
> [@crucible](#): > > First, I see the names of organizations, but no links to their specific statements that say “Breed specific legislation is not the answer to the problem of pit bulls killing people” > for all I know, every one of those organizations has said precisely that, but I doubt their message is quite so clear as you claim. Why would you doubt it? Have you notivced me misrepresenting things? American Humane Association: > [@](#): > > American Humane understands that any breed of dog can bite, and as such, believes that _ **breed-specific legislation does not effectively protect the community from dangerous animals** _. Conversely, not all dogs of a given breed are dangerous. Legislation banning particular breeds can unnecessarily discriminate against dogs that are not dangerous, and does little to protect the community from dog bite incidents. Such legislation can often have unintended consequences such as spawning black market interest, indiscriminate breeding practices, and subsequent overpopulation issues. Additionally, there can be confusion when dealing with “mixed-breed” dogs, which can make legislation difficult to enforce. _ **Therefore, American Humane supports local legislation to protect the community from dangerous animals, but does not advocate laws that target a specific breed of dog** _. Is that not clear? AKC > [@](#): > > The American Kennel Club \*\*\*strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be “dangerous” based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes \*\*\*of dogs. The AVMA: > [@](#): > > Any dog can bite, regardless of its breed, and more often people are bitten by dogs they know. It’s not the dog’s breed that determines risk – it’s the dog’s behavior, general size, number of dogs involved and the vulnerability of the person bitten that determines whether or not a dog or dogs will cause a serious bite injury. Dogs can be aggressive for all sorts of reasons. A dog that’s bitten once can bite again, and a dog that’s never bitten could still bite. > > Don’t rely on breed stereotypes to keep yourself safe from dog bites. A dog’s individual history and behavior are much more important than its breed, and since you don’t always know a dog’s history or behavior, it’s not a good idea to make assumptions. Instead, concentrate on prevention: educate yourself, teach children about proper interactions and behaviors with dogs, and learn how to recognize risky and escalating situations with aggressive dogs. These steps – not BSL – will lead to fewer dog bites Australian National Kennel Council: > [@](#): > > The ANKC strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be ‘dangerous’ based on specific breeds or phonetic classes of dogs. Australian Veterinary Association: > [@](#): > > Policy > > The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) does not support breed-specific legislation for dog bite prevention, because experience in other countries has shown that such legislation has failed to reduce the frequency of dog bites. Canadian Kennel Club: > [@](#): > > The Canadian Kennel Club supports dangerous and/or vicious dog legislation, which would serve to protect the public from dangerous dogs. _ **The Canadian Kennel Club does not support breed-specific legislation** _. The Canadian Kennel Club’s opposition to breed-specific legislation is based on the fact that a dangerous temperament is a product of many factors, and not by breed alone. Thus, breed-specific legislation may include dogs which are not dangerous, while excluding those which are._ **The Canadian Kennel Club considers banning a particular type of dog as a reactionary measure with little effect, and one that will only serve to push the indiscriminate breeders and/or owners underground, or to another breed not included in the legislation.The label of “vicious” and/or “dangerous” should be determined by an individual dog’s behaviour, and not by its breed or appearance** _. Humane Society of the United States: > [@](#): > > 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. National ANimal Interest Alliance: > [@](#): > > Breed specific legislation: > > NAIA supports reasonable laws to protect the public from dangerous dogs and _ **opposes breed-specific legislation in any form.** _ > > Breed-specific laws target good dogs and responsible animal owners along with the bad. \*\*Unfortunately, sensational media coverage and misleading claims of canine super strength and cunning of some breeds of dogs, especially the bull-and-terrier breeds and crossbreeds, have manipulated public opinion. The National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors: > [@](#): > > NADOI > > "The National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors (NADOI) _ **strongly opposes breed specific legislation which targets or discriminates against certain dogs based only on their breed or appearance.** _ > > Such laws are unfair because they assume that a dog may be dangerous simply because of breed.\*\*\* In fact, it is almost always the behavior of the owners of these dogs which makes them a danger to other\*\*\*s. Swedish Kennel Club > [@](#): > > The Swedish Kennel clubs policy is the same as the Swedish government’s policy, and that is that no breeds shall be banned, but dogs with overly aggressive temperaments and extreme “fightdrive” must be banned. > > The government has just put forward a new legislation regarding dangerous dogs which gives the police and authorities a greater possibility to take dogs that has a record of biting and that has a extreme temperament. This is something that the SKK has approved of. > > _ **The SKK is of the opinion that dangerous dog are not a breed problem but an owners problem and no specific breed or type of dog shall be banned** _. Also these aorganizations, not named earlier: THe Association of Pet Dog Trainers: > [@](#): > > The APDT opposes any law that deems a dog as dangerous or vicious based on appearance, breed or phenotype. Canine temperaments are widely varied, and behavior cannot be predicted by physical features such as head shape, coat length, muscle to bone ratio, etc. The only predictor of behavior is behavior. NAtional Animal Control Association - the people responsible for dealing with animals that are out of control. They say: > [@](#): > > Dangerous and/or vicious animals should be labeled as such as a result of their actions or behavior and \*\*not because of their breed.\*\*Any animal may exhibit aggressive behavior regard-less of breed.Accurately identifying a specific animal’s lineage for prosecution purposes may be extremely difficult.Additionally, breed specific legislation may create an undue burden to owners who otherwise have demonstrated proper pet management and responsibility. The United Kennel Club: > [@](#): > > Attempting to attribute bites to a single breed and labeling that breed is fruitless, as there exists no real, factual data to show that any one breed is more responsible for bites and attacks than others. Singling out a breed to attach blame does not work to decrease dog attacks. Case in point, the Dutch government has lifted a 15-year ban on ‘pit bulls’ because there has not been ANY decrease in dog bites. Also see statements by the Department of Justice and the American Bar Association, as well as, of course the much discussed CDC. Most of these quotes were taken from these two sources: > **[Web Page Under Construction](http://www.endangereddogs.com/EDDRBSLopinions.htm)** > > Network Solutions - Original domain name registration and reservation services with variety of internet-related business offerings. Quick, dependable and reliable. [http://animalfarmfoundation.org/files/BSL-E-Book-08-13.pdf](http://animalfarmfoundation.org/files/BSL-E-Book-08-13.pdf) And as you can see for yourself, all the organizations are crystal clear, no ambiguity whatsoever: breed banning is bullshit. Targeting any breed or breeds or appearance or type is bullshit. Wrong. Bad. Useless. Unfair. Pointless. Bullshit. Agreed to by virtually all veterinarians, dog trainers, dog CATCHERS, for god’s sake, as well as lawyers, doctors, and a wide variety of research specialists. So you are certainly entitled to your feelings, but in terms of facts, there is no basis for banning pit bulls or any other kinds of dogs. Oh and the pdf link had a very interesting bit regarding some other research > [@](#): > > insightful new analysis, recently published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, explains why BSL has consistently failed to reduce dog bites. The authors, Gary J. Patronek, VMD, PhD, and Amy Marder, VMD, CAAB, of the Center for Shelter Dogs, Animal Rescue League of Boston; and Margaret Slater, DVM, PhD, of the ASPCA, have applied one of the most valuable and well- recognized tools of evidence-based medicine to this question. > > Number needed to treat (called NNT) measures the effectiveness of new medicines or treatments. It asks the question: How many patients have to take the medicine or get the treatment in order for one patient to avoid a bad outcome? The fewer patients that have to be treated in order to avoid a bad outcome, the more effective scientists consider a medicine or treatment to be. > > But what if we had to treat thousands of patients to avoid even one bad outcome? Would we bother with a new medicine if the number of people we needed to treat to prevent one bad outcome, was 10,000? If we could only identify 9,900 people suffering from the disease, we could not treat enough people with the new medicine to be sure that even one of them would avoid the dreaded symptom. > > This is precisely the result that Patronek and his colleagues obtained when they applied this evidence- based method to estimating how many dogs a community would have to ban to prevent a single, serious dog bite. They called their mystery number the number needed to ban (NNB). Using dog bite injury data from the Centers for Disease Control, the State of Colorado, and other, smaller jurisdictions, along with guestimates of the population of various breeds or kinds of dogs, the authors calculated the absurdly large numbers of dogs of targeted breeds who would have to be completely removed from a community, in order to prevent even one serious dog bite. For example, in order to prevent a single hospitalization resulting from a dog bite, the authors calculate that a city or town would have to ban more than 100,000 dogs of a targeted breed. > > To prevent a second hospitalization, double that number. > > Dog bite-related fatalities are so extremely rare that not even a state could ban enough dogs to insure that they had prevented even one. (Consider: in Denver, Colorado, after they banned “pit bull” dogs in 1989, they had another dog bite-related fatality in the Denver area, involving another type of dog.) > > Spain, Italy, Great Britain and the Netherlands have all reported that their breed specific regulations have not produced a reduction in dog bite incidents. The Toronto Humane Society surveyed health departments throughout the province of Ontario, and reported that the breed ban enacted in 2005 had not produced a reduction in dog bites. In Winnipeg, Manitoba, after the city banned one type of dog, dog bites actually rose, just involving other types of dogs. Reports from Denver, Colorado, Miami-Dade, Florida, Prince George’s County, Maryland, and Omaha, Nebraska all tell the same story. > > While there is no scientific evidence that one kind of dog is more likely to injure a person than another kind of dog and BSL’s documented record is one of ineffectiveness, BSL remains a policy that some find attractive. Patronek, Marder and Slater explain why. > > “It is our belief,” they write in their conclusion, “that BSL is based largely on fear, and it has been emphasized that appeals to fear have their greatest influence when coupled with messages about the high efficacy of the proposed fear-based solution.” > > The documented failures of BSL, now combined with the NNB analysis, can be marshaled to undermine such fear-based appeals. BSL proponents will be unable to show “high efficacy of the fear-based solution” or that BSL is rationally related to the public safety issues communities are typically attempting to address when implementing BSL. > > The complete article can be purchased from the Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association at [Use of a number-needed-to-ban calculation to illustrate limitations of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the risk of dog bite–related injury in: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association Volume 237 Issue 7 ()](http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/full/10.2460/javma.237.7.788) So those of you who are insisting that pit bulls are dangerous and must be banned are essentially telling us that this extraordinarily broad and deep list of experts and professionals are all wrong about pit bulls and the usefulness of breed-specific bans, and that you are right. So can you explain to us how that is so? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714.md?page=41) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714.md?page=43)