Should aggressive dog breeds be banned?

Great Debates
81

Pit bulls are NOT the only breed that sometimes attacks for no apparent reason. Dogs are living things, and thus are somewhat unpredictable, no matter how well trained.

Because of that, I would NEVER let a child play with a dog that wasn’t a lot smaller than the child, just as I would never let my child play with a big severely retarded guy wielding a knife. The retarded guy might be the most gentle person in the world, and would never intentionally harm the child, but is not smart enough to realize that what they consider play might be dangerous to the kid, and he’s holding that knife… It would be just asking for something bad to happen. Likewise, dogs are not as smart as us. They always have dangerous weapons on them (their teeth and claws). Dogs sometimes involve biting in their play, and the dog equivelant to a playful punch on the shoulder between humans can seriously injure a human. A dog also tends to react to negative stimulus without considering the cause of it like we do. Some dogs have sensitive spots they don’t like to touch - my uncle had a dog that was great with kids, as long as they were warned ahead of time not to pet or touch him under his chin - he did not like that and would snap. Kids also do things when playing with dogs that would hurt any dog, like pulling or blowing in their ears, spreading their toes too far apart, etc.

Humans also have a different surrender reflex than dogs. An adult dog will often grab a pup with it’s jaws and give it a little squeeze when it’s misbehaving. The pup will go limp and roll over if it can…if it doesn’t, a little more pressure is applied. A human given a correctional bite probably won’t respond properly, and the dog’s instinctual response can be harmful.

My take - all dogs are potentially aggressive. You can never be 100% certain that it’s not going to bite someone. You are responsible for the actions of your pet, therefore it is in your best interest to keep it under your control, especially if it is big enough to do serious damage (though even the smallest dog can hurt someone enough to need stitches). I think as a potentially dangerous thing that requires caution and understanding to interact with safely, young children should be kept away from dogs. I think dogs that show a pattern of overly-aggressive behavior should be put down. As to single instances, I don’t really think it’s fair to the dog to put them down for one bite as even a good dog can have a bad day, but it might be a good idea anyway.

82

At this point, after 680 views of which many are repeats, three people have come forward to testify to a savage maiming attack by a Pit Bull on a member of their immediate family.** In each case the Pit Bull was well known, friendly and raised by responsible loving owners.**

**Straight Doper…Relative Savagely Attacked **

juswannano…daughter
Holly…son
Wildest Bill…wife

83

I don’t think responses on a message board are an accurate polling method. I think the stats on dog bites resulting in hospitalization is more accurate - and pit bulls are WAY down on the list. Considering they are a popular breed, especially among people who WANT a mean dog, and that a bite from a pit bull is going to be more likely to result in a serious injury than one from a dog without such powerful jaws, it sure looks like pit bulls are one of the safer breeds. You are also assuming that they are correct when they said the dog was raised properly (they may have been nice to the dog, but was it always fed after the humans? Were it’s attempts to dominate other members of it’s ‘pack’ reacted to properly?), and disregarding my point that ANY dog, no matter how well trained, MIGHT bite someone.

84

Also consider that any of the thousands of people who post here are more likely to respond to a thread about banning aggressive dogs if they have known someone who was bitten by a dog with a bad rep.

85

Despite my own experience, I’m not necessarily in favor of banning pit bulls. I’d like to see some kind of control over vicious dogs in general; for example, in my town, owners are not required to euthanize dogs who have attacked and seriously injured people. In places where dog fighting is a problem, that should be prosecuted.

It’s a good idea for anyone who owns a potentially dangerous dog to carry extra liability insurance. Our neighbor didn’t have liability insurance; he graciously agreed to pay Jeremy’s medical bills (which totalled over $3,000). He paid us $50 per month, all he could afford. We have extra liability insurance, even though our personal dogs are small and harmless.

In fact, when we signed up for our homeowner’s insurance, the agent specifically asked us if we have a pit bull or a Rottweiler because ownership of such dogs is considered a liability risk.

As a society, we shouldn’t tolerate vicious dogs. Dog owners should be held responsible for the damage inflicted by their pets. Education to prevent dog bites and discourage the keeping of vicious dogs would be helpful, too. Many people own pit bulls because it’s so cool to have a vicious dog; that’s just plain stupid.

86

Hospitalizations do not equal fatalities. Sure, there are tons of dog bites every year and people go to the hospital when they’re hurt. Maybe they need a couple of stitches, maybe they sprained an ankle when the dog jumped on them. I can’t say why people go to the hospital after they get bitten, I’m sure it ranges from needing a band-aid to needing a transfusion, but here are the stats on actual FATALITIES:

To me, that doesn’t sound so safe. This is where I found these stats (it’s the same site, different page, cited by dogsbody way early in this thread):

http://www.hsus.org/nodogbites/NDBPW_would_bite.html

The article tries it’s best to be fair to aggressive dogs, but this paragraph says it all to me. Pomeranians aren’t responsible for 57 tragic and most assuredly painful deaths.

It really makes me crazy when people think one of their precious freedoms may be infringed upon (even if it is for public safety) and immediately fly off the handle and start citing ridiculous parallels. Ban nails?!? Hey, the second nails show a propensity to leap out of their box and pound themselves into unsuspecting carpenters, you bethcha we’re banning those nails! But instead of the immediate reaction, think about the situation, put yourself in someone else’s place (and no, I don’t mean the dog’s place, I can see that coming from a mile away) and think “Can I prevent something awful from happening?”

Or comparing this to racism. WHAT?!?! So do you think we should spend a bunch of taxpayers money on doggie prison? I mean really, comparing dogs to humans is just silly. They’re ANIMALS. Animals that WE have BRED to be VICIOUS!! Why can’t we all just say “Whoops!” and fix a problem we’re actually able to fix.

Look, I love animals, I think they’re great, but we need to act responsibly and allowing people to keep these types of dogs, no matter how well behaved they’re thought to be, is turning away from a problem that could be very eaily solved. 57 people may seem like an acceptable loss for someone who wuvs their cuddly-wuddly Pittie, but there are 57 devistated families who beg to differ. Why are people so willing to wait until tragedy has already struck to do anything? I just don’t get it. How will the world suffer from a lack of aggressive dogs? Please, someone tell me how without freaking out and saying “Well, if you start with aggressive dogs, then someone will want to ban cats because they’re allergic, and then gerbils because people keep making fun of Richard Gere, and then people will want to ban babies because they may grow up to be murderers.” Please spare me that ridiculous argument and explain calmly what the real cons are of banning aggressive dogs.

I understand that some people may think it won’t solve the problem and that educating dog owners and creating some laws about controlling animals is the way to go. OK, so will you kindly explain to me how this will help when there are people out there feeding already aggressive dogs steroids to make them meaner. Is this guy going to trot off to obedience school with his beastie? Is this guy going to care that there’s some silly law out there that may or may not be enforced?

Sheesh!

87

So I read through a page and a half, before coming to dublos’ proposal, which had been in my mind all along. Yet it receives next to no follow-up. Why is that?

Couldn’t this situation be dealt with by strong regulation and punishment of owners and breeders. I think, at the least, this is a valid alternative to the OP worthy of debate.

As has been noted, any dog can be induced to bite. (Which is not to say the owner should not be liable for damages caused by an initial bite, provoked or otherwise.) But a second attack, either against a person or another domestic animal, should lead to the animal being destroyed. And perhaps at some point the owner should be prohibited from keeping dogs in the future, at least for a certain period. Or required to attend training/education.

And perhaps if breeders were required to be licensed and “vicious dogs” were traced back to a particular breeder, that breeder could be penalized in some manner. There also could be a penalty for owneing a dog that did not come from a licensed breeder. And unlicensed dogs of whatever breed would be readily destroyed.

I certainly don’t have all the answers, and this post does not attempt to set out a complete workable solution. But I just wanted to point out my opinion that dublos’ post warrants additional examination.

Sure, regulation would require $ and effort. But at least it wouldn’t run into a constitutional right to bear dogs.

One question, many posters have acknowledged keeping dogs they know are dangerous to other dogs. Why do you want to own such a dog? There are dogs out there who are lovable towards people, and are also not a threat to other dogs.

I think this debate treads the line where people strongly differ in their emotions towards dogs. For example, I love dogs deeply. But I freely acknowledge that they are a lower order of life than humans. And our society must value certain human interests infinitely higher than any canine interests. Sure, it is unfortunate that dogs exist that are not loved. But the destruction of such animals does not cause me to lose sleep. I don’t care how much you love your dog – it should not interfere with my quiet enjoyment of my home. To me, each dog’s life is not of some significant inherent value. In most of the western world we’ve got this cultural baggage that treats this particular mammal differently than others. Why don’t we eat dogs and cats or make clothes out of their skin? I guess I don’t agree that the canine position on the continuum of “rights” is permanently set at a particular point.

To fill out my post (and perhaps illustrate my hypocrisy) here’s my situation. I have a 3 year old golden. She has nipped at 2 of my 3 kids - never breaking skin. Each time, my kid was doing something stupid. Was that “provocation” such that the “attack” was justified? I think I may have exacerbated the situation because when my 7 year old poked the dog in the eye and got nipped, I yelled at my daughter for being so stupid, which the dog may have interpreted as indicating that the issue of her dominance/submissiveness with respect to each particular human was open for debate.

Now I am nervous when people with little children come over, because both the adults and their kids often have no idea of how to behave dominantly towards a dog. Just the other day, a couple was over with a 2 year old daughter, who was petting Daisy with one hand, while holding a cracker in the other. And I had to call Daisy away from her. It would not surprise me if the dog tried to nip the cracker out of her hand.

This is a golden retreiver, generally considered a very gentle breed. The specific dog, is extremely submissive in most situations. If you came to my door, she would roll on her back, showing her belly, and whining submissively. (I have tried to stop her from doing that, but have had no success. Than god she doesn’t piddle!) Hell, she plays with my son’s rat, which is almost as big as her nose.

So, should I have this dangerous dog destroyed?

88

As has been mentioned before, dog bites are not a problem. It’s severe maimings and killings that are a problem. Statistics about those would be most pertinent to the discussion. Look at the stats on the HSUS site linked to above, and tell me again that pit bull are way down on the list…

And about racism towards dogs… I don’t think I should have to mention that dogs basically have no rights. The only right in fact that I can think of at the moment is the right to not to be cruelly treated without government approval.

89

grienspace
you said

At this point, after 680 views of which many are repeats, three people have come forward to testify to a savage maiming attack by a Pit Bull on a member of their immediate family. In each case the Pit Bull was well known, friendly and raised by responsible loving owners.

Straight Doper…Relative Savagely Attacked

juswannano…daughter
Holly…son
Wildest Bill…wife

I didn’t say that.
My daughter didn’t really know the dog,or more importantly the dog didn’t know her.

If you really read my post you can see that I said the dog thought it was being attacked.

I don’t know if the dog was raised by responsible loving owners.

Anyway the dog was not a pit bull.
It was a blue eyed husky type. I don’t know the breed but they aren’t particularly friendly.

90

And perhaps if breeders were required to be licensed and “vicious dogs” were traced back to a particular breeder, that breeder could be penalized in some manner. There also could be a penalty for owneing a dog that did not come from a licensed breeder. And unlicensed dogs of whatever breed would be readily destroyed.**
[/QUOTE]

I think those are great ideas (especially the one where dogs are neutered before they’re sold), it would reduce the number of these dogs irresponsibly owned and bred. But even an inherently aggressive dog that’s well cared for is a danger. And there are so many crooked people out there willing to sell illegal dogs, I just don’t think it goes far enough.

I don’t think so because she gives warning signs of being annoyed or domineering like nipping or growling instead of just lashing out unexpectedly and viciously. I’d probably not let little kids play with her without being supervised, but I think it should be like that for any pet. I mean, a tasty cracker in the hand of a little kid is pretty tempting when you’re a pooch. :slight_smile:

91

I just can’t understand why someone who is a dog lover would choose to own a dog that is dangerous to people and/or other animals. I was raised with a German shephard; she was without a doubt the best dog that ever lived (in my opinion, of course). Even though she could have easily fit my entire head in her mouth, she never once so much as snapped at me- even when I was a baby, pulling on her tail or trying to ride on her back.

A dog that attacks without warning is a dangerous dog indeed. Even a small child can recognize a growl or a nip as a warning to get away.

Two more pit bull anecdotes that I can’t resist mentioning: When I worked in home health, I took care of a 96 year old lady who was mauled when her neighbor’s two pit bulls jumped the fence to attack her. They’d drag her around the yard for a while, stop to get a drink of water, then attack her again until finally another neighbor heard her cries for help. There is no law in this town requiring such dogs to be put down, so the owner kept them until the other neighbors made such a ruckus that they felt compelled to give the dogs away. They immediately went out and bought three new pit bulls, all of them vicious (they chased me several times, Cujo-style) and never paid a dime of the lady’s medical bills. These dogs would regularly jump the fence and prey on cats and dogs kept in other neighbors’ yards. Whenever Animal Control impounded them, the owners simply paid the $20 fee and brought them home again.

That woman is so afraid of those dogs (and rightly so) that she has not left her house once since the attack. She watches out the window, and whenever she sees the dogs running loose (which happens pretty much every day) she calls Animal Control.

I have seen the woman who owns those pit bulls carrying her infant daughter over her head to get into the house while the dogs leap up, snarling, trying to snatch the baby out of her hands.

Secondly, when I worked in ICU, we had a patient who had been dog-sitting for her mother’s two pit bulls. The dogs knew her well, since the time when they were pups. One day, while she was feeding them, they attacked her. She lost both of her legs just below the hips.

There is a huge difference between a warning nip and a vicious attack that leaves the victim maimed for life.

92

No. It would be a complete and utter hijack of this thread. Besides, I didn’t say it was not ok to kill a specific dog that bit someone (in fact, I said the opposite), I said it was not ok to kill an entire breed of dog because some of them bite people.

That doesn’t suprise me.

The rest of you, read Holly’s last post and then tell me what the problem there is.

Oh, and grienspace, quoting someone’s entire post in your own is irritating and considered bad form, especially when the post you’re quoting from is right above your own.

93

I misunderstood justwannano By then the debate was primarily focused on Pit Bulls, the only breed of real concern. I did think your daughter was fairly lucky to get away with minor scars. Now I know why.

Okay then, we have two incidents of Pit Bull maulings on immediate family of straight dopers by friendly Pit Bulls.
Do you think that any immediate family member of Straight Dopers have suffered gunshot wounds? I think ya-all can get the drift of my meaning.

94

That is a cop out Demise! In fact those who are concerned about the Pit Bull menace would very much like to read your response. You totally ignored my reference to the killing of tens of thousands of innocent cattle just on the possibility that they may carry Mad Cow disease. I asked you to explain yourself in that regard. Come out and debate !

Who are you quoting? What are you referring to? It is good form to identify quotes and leave enough information that all of us can understand the context.

demise, yelling as you did in one of your earlier posts isn’t good form either ! I quoted the entire text, because the entire text was relevant to my point. Besides, I consider that post of** Holly’s** to be the top post of the thread, and worthy to be repeated in bold. Now instead of nitpicking me, tell me what your position is on herds of cattle which may or may not carry Mad Cow disease as compared to Pit Bulls which may or may not explode into viscious killing machines.

95

Demise

I reread my post. Do you mean there’s a problem with what I said, or a problem with the way dog attacks are handled here?

I think my town could do quite a bit to reduce morbidity and mortality from vicious dogs by enacting and enforcing some basic laws. In my opinion: dogs who have viciously mauled people should be euthanized.

Leash laws should be enforced so we’d have fewer packs of dogs roaming the streets. Owners should pay a higher penalty when their dogs run loose.

Owners should be compelled to pay the medical expenses of people their dogs have attacked. (This might mean mandatory liability insurance. If you were mauled by a dog and took the owner to court to recover your medical expenses, you’d win the case- but if the dog owner doesn’t have any money, you’re screwed anyway, plus you have to pay your legal fees.)

When a dog which is known to be vicious attacks, the owner should be held criminally responsible.

It would be helpful to me, Demise, if you’d explain what was wrong with my previous post.

96

Unlike dogs, cows destined to become steak are not typically considered anyone’s close companion. Apparently, you have never had a pet of any kind, otherwise you’d understand perfectly.

Also, others have pointed out that the line between what’s a pit bull and what’s not a pit bull is rather fuzzy. Nne of you who want pit bulls eliminated have attempted to propose a solution to this dilemma.

The only way to really solve this problem would be to identify the genes responsible for agressiveness, and require all dogs to have their DNA tested, and sterilize or kill the ones who are determined to be instinctively agressive. Unfortunately, the Canine Genome Project hasn’t even been started yet AFAIK.

97

I am sorry I gave you the impression that there was anything wrong with your post, there isn’t. The problem I was referring to is the negligent/uncaring/stupid dog owners, and you have covered it admirably in your last post:

My point exactly.

grienspace, this is a beautiful hijack, plus it made me laugh out loud. Let’s see, comparing a problem (a disease) with a totally unrelated problem (animal attacks). Wonderful strawman argument, really. No thanks.

98

Hmmmm. I’m not laughing.But then I wouldn’t want to be faced with trying to make the argument that it is okay to eradicate cows for a possible threat to some people, but not to eradicate a canine genetic mistake that is a threat to some people.

I realize that some of you are wondering why doesn’t grienspacelet up. He’s like a Pit Bull. I don’t know, maybe its genetic. Both my parents argued a lot, and it could be my Dutch ancestry. The Dutch are an argumentative lot. At least no one is bleeding.

99

Um, actually I’m pretty sure there are several, maybe even more than have been mauled by dogs.

I’m with dogsbody- talk to each other’s brick walls until you’re blue in the face- no-one is listening, sadly, and no-one’s mind is going to be changed.

100

OK, some people obviously think that because one loosely-defined category of dogs is statistically more likely to kill someone, they should be destroyed. This is despite the fact that people who know something about dog breeding have come forward to say that pit bulls are no more aggressive than border collies and that a tendency to maul is unlikely to be genetic trait (more likely the way the animal is raised). This is despite the fact that the term ‘pit-bull’ as is being used here does not mean a specific breed, but a mutt with certain physical traits (short hair, stocky body, big head) - how many of these attacks are by AKC-registered American Staffordshire Terriers?

I think it’s funny that when I compared this line of thinking to wanting to exterminate or imprison certain races because they are more likely to kill someone, it was not rebutted with ‘You can’t imprison a man because other people the same color are more likely to kill’ but ‘They are people, not dogs’ and ‘You can’t be suggesting building doggy prisons’. Heh heh.

Where does it stop? If pit bulls are done away with, people who chose to fight their dogs or raise them to be mean will pick another, probably Rottweilers and Rottweiler hybrids. Since any big dog can be made dangerous, there will be a rise in people killed by Rottweilers - and if you can justify exterminating pit bulls, then of course you HAVE to do rottweilers…and then whatever big dog comes up next. I think eventually, after the extermination of all dogs over 20 lbs., we won’t see many people killed by dogs, folks in the ghetto will be fighting their West Highland White Terriers against each other, but when they bite nobody’s going to die. Maybe the breedists would stop there…