Ban on Pitbulls

[Chikara]

Just saying but, it doesn't matter who raises a Pitbull. They're vicious dogs by nature. Even if it's raised in a kind, loving environment, it's not going to deplete the breed's natural instinct. That's just reality. Yeah, a lot of Pitbulls are nice, good dogs and won't tear your face off for existing withing a 10 foot radius of it, but like I said. It's instinct.

Ever heard the whole "Rocky's never done that before. Rocky never bites. Rocky is a good dog" explanation?

Don't get me wrong; I love pitbulls, I think they're adorable. But saying things like "they're only violent if the owner treats them bad" is very naive.

BUT YEAH. Either way, I disagree with the ban lmfao. It's completely ridiculous and won't accomplish a thing. Even if it did get a hearing, an passed for that matter, it wouldn't change much. Yeah, less violent dog breeds. Still psycho killers with guns and knives. All it'll do it take family dogs away from families that love them ):

 

[twocows]

That's silly. Anything has the potential to be violent. If anything, there should just be mandatory training for people who raise dogs with more aggressive reputations.

 

[cazzler]

Just saying but, it doesn't matter who raises a Pitbull. They're vicious dogs by nature. Even if it's raised in a kind, loving environment, it's not going to deplete the breed's natural instinct. That's just reality. Yeah, a lot of Pitbulls are nice, good dogs and won't tear your face off for existing withing a 10 foot radius of it, but like I said. It's instinct.

Ever heard the whole "Rocky's never done that before. Rocky never bites. Rocky is a good dog" explanation?

Don't get me wrong; I love pitbulls, I think they're adorable. But saying things like "they're only violent if the owner treats them bad" is very naive.

BUT YEAH. Either way, I disagree with the ban lmfao. It's completely ridiculous and won't accomplish a thing. Even if it did get a hearing, an passed for that matter, it wouldn't change much. Yeah, less violent dog breeds. Still psycho killers with guns and knives. All it'll do it take family dogs away from families that love them ):

I agree, these dogs are very violent by NATURE, recently in Australia (Where I live) A pregnant women who owns two Pitbulls was killed by one of them, the husband gave the other one away. These dogs were apparently nice and what not, this was the first incident caused by them.

 

[Zy-Reji-Mario-Zylon]

I don't think pit bulls should be baned because I have a pit bull named Pepsi and She loves to sniff my shoes she is completely harmless

 

[DowntownDumpling]

Humans have been shown to kill one another, fight in gangs, be crafty and manipulative, and influence each other to commit terrible crimes.

Humans, on an evolutionary level, do not need to hunt other animals for food, but many do anyway, and upwards of 96% of the world's population eats meat.

Humans are the only species to force other animals to do their work on a large scale. They are also the only species to domesticate other animals for their own amusement.

 

[Ice Car]

I ****ing hate these people, pardon the language. If you're going to generalize that much, why not go and emphasize all other stereotypes? Hey, all Asians are smart, let's allow only Asians as teachers! All Black People live on the streets, talk trash, and listen to rap, so let's deny them jobs! Etc. etc.

Besides, as others have said, the dog fighters will just find another breed to use dog fighting for. It's not that hard at all. First they're going to ban pit bulls, then whatever dog they use for fighting, then the next, and the next after that until too many breeds to count are banned, or just about any breed that could be characterized as dangerous. This whole idea is just stupid.

Humans have been shown to kill one another, fight in gangs, be crafty and manipulative, and influence each other to commit terrible crimes.

Humans, on an evolutionary level, do not need to hunt other animals for food, but many do anyway, and upwards of 96% of the world's population eats meat.

Humans are the only species to force other animals to do their work on a large scale. They are also the only species to domesticate other animals for their own amusement.

I can see your argument about Humans being Bastards compared to anything else by far, but how exactly are we going to "ban ourselves"? I can apply "fight in gangs and be crafty and manipulative" to quite a few species/animals. Just because us humans are flawed in oh, so many ways, does that mean we can't enforce laws for the general good, regardless of the fact that it may or may not jeopardize animals? So, we'd have no right to put a ban on snakes or other dangerous animals as pets. Indeed, they can be domesticated and friendly, almost any animal can, but they are still more dangerous than others, but if it's for the general good, why can't we pass it?

I'm just assuming you're arguing "Humans are bigger problems than any of the world's problems with animals combined. Why are we focusing on them instead of us?". If I'm wrong, ignore this post.

 

[Livewire]

Besides, as others have said, the dog fighters will just find another breed to use dog fighting for. It's not that hard at all. First they're going to ban pit bulls, then whatever dog they use for fighting, then the next, and the next after that until too many breeds to count are banned, or just about any breed that could be characterized as dangerous. This whole idea is just stupid

No, they use that breed specifically because of the breed's inherent qualities - the compact, muscular build and penchant for aggression. They use the breed capable of fulfilling the role they need. They won't fight Golden Retrievers, because they would suck at it.

 

[Shiny Celebi]

No breed of dogs should be banned. It isnt the dogs fault, it is human's fault for forcing them to be fighting dogs.

 

[Esper]

These are dogs. Animals. They can't control themselves so it's the owners who need to take responsibility. However, since you can't restrict where people can go and live the only way to keep dangerous animals (or, if you prefer, "animals with a greater disposition toward aggressiveness") is to have outright bans or restrictions in certain areas. You can't exactly have a license for people to carry around which say "It's okay. My pit bull is safe." There's too much room for error there. It's an animal. It can be unpredictable. And the owner could be unscrupulous, reusing a license from another dog and so on.

I mean, a ban isn't asking for everyone to have their dogs put down or anything. It's not like you couldn't just choose to get a different breed or dog.

 

[Rogue planet]

If anything AT ALL we should just have a ban on people breeding this dog. It's not like this particular breed of dog is natural anyway, they've been purposefully bred as violent dogs. It's just sick and twisted human intervention. At least if we outlaw breeding, no dogs are neglected in the process.
I'm talking about American Pitbulls here, but I have to admit I have never actually been in contact with one, so I am simply basing this on what I've heard.

Although I have met English Bulldogs and Staffordshire bull terriers and I have to say they really are lovely dogs and I could never support a ban.

I don't think I'd ever support an outright ban of having a particular breed; so many breeds can become violent, depending on how **** their owner is. It's not the fault of the dog, it's the owner.

 

[Yoshikko]

Well, I do believe that the aggressiveness of any animal is definitely influenced by the owner. The energy of the owner, the way it treats the animal, the way it was raised, all those factors count. But it's true that Pitbulls can be dangerous, and in this case I think it's just a case of nature or nurture, probably. Pitbulls have very strong jaws, and most of the time they refuse to let go, and like most animals, will bite even harder if you try to shake them off. There is a myth about them having a "lock-jaw", that would be a mechanism in the jaws, that would make the dog unable to, as the name points out, unlock their jaws from a bite. This piece of text explains that there is no such thing in any animal though, and I think I agree.

The following quote was sent to me from Dr. Howard Evans, Professor Emeritus, College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University, Ithaca New York. We were colleagues in the veterinary college for four years. He is the author of the textbook, ANATOMY OF THE DOG, (the world's definitive work on the anatomy of the dog). His statement was in a letter addressed to me on March 26. 2002. His quote was: "I have spoken with [Dr.] Sandy deLahunta (the foremost dog neurologist in the country) and [DR.] Katherine Houpt (a leading dog behaviorist) about a jaw locking mechanism in pit bulls or any other dog and they both say, as do I, that there is NO SUCH THING AS "JAW LOCKING" IN ANY BREED.

We all agree that the power of the bite is proportional to the size of the jaws and the jaw muscles. There is no anatomical structure that could be a locking mechanism in any dog." As a Professor Emeritus from the College of Veterinary Medicine at Michigan State University, I agree completely with their conclusion.

As for fighting dogs; they are using the Pitbulls because of their strong jaws, so it is not at all the dogs fault. They should focus on the fighters, instead of the dogs. Any dog could be made aggressive, they all have jaws and sharp teeth.

 

[Archer]

While I don't necessarily believe in a blanket ban on a particular breed, suggesting that the breed has nothing to do with the nature of the dog is just naive.

Add to that their jaw strength, your average Pitbull produces a more dangerous dog than your average Golden Retriever. Of course, there will be (many) exceptions to the rule. But they have more potential to be dangerous, which is the concern.

All dogs should have secure fencing and be kept on a controlled leash in public, so I don't see what the fuss is about, aside from the blanket bans that I oppose.

 

[-ty-]

I think some us are forgetting that Pit Bulls are not the most lethal/aggressive breed. Chows, Dobermans, and many other breeds are more likely to cause human deaths. If you go back to the first page of the thread you will see the numbers. If that is the case than all dogs with a higher rate of human mortality should also be banned, or none of them, including pit bulls.

 

[Graceful]

I blame the owners and the way they were brought up, rather than the dogs themselves. The environment surrounding them will choose whether it will be aggressive or what not.
If it's brought up nicely in a caring environment, then that's fair enough.

Also, I have a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (and a Shih Tsu/Jack Russell cross) and although mine is REALLY friendly, I have read several articles and there are reported cases of Cavaliers being aggressive, when in fact, it's not in it's usual nature >.>

 

[DreamQueen]

Look at it this way.

If they were banned, it would not stop the people who shouldn't own these dogs. The dog fighters are already breaking the law by fighting their dogs, not desexing, registering or microchipping them, as well as breaking home slaughter laws and home veterinary care laws, depending on what state you're in.

If APBT are banned, do you think the dogfighters are honestly going to throw their hands up in the air and sigh "Well, the police say I can't, so I won't. In fact, I'm so ashamed of my earlier actions that I'm going to turn over a new leaf and sign up to adopt a Labrador, whom I will love, adore and care for"

NO.

They are merely going to keep their dogs in worse conditions in order to conceal them. The ones who will have to give up their pets are the ones whose dogs pose no risk to the public. The ones who rescue the ex fighting dogs and rehabilitate them.

Banning a particular breed of dog isn't going to make a drop in dog attack statistics. People are freaking stupid, there is no law that will solve this. They will buy a bull breed to show off. They will buy a bull breed or working line dog and not train it. They will leave their children with their dogs unattended. They will not contain their dog if it shows previous signs of aggression.

APBT from appropriate, responsible breeders surpass hundreds of other breeds in temperament tests. They are the breed most likely to be chosen for therapy and disability work in states where the APBT is not restricted- these dogs do not "snap" and randomly mow their way through child care centres.

So what can people do to reduce dog bite statistics?

ENFORCE breeding laws. No more backyarders or mills. No puppies sold without up to date microchipping. All breeders of any breed to undergo annual inspections and provide up to date records of breeding animals.

ENFORCE responsible ownership. Classes to teach children how to approach a strange dog and to teach dog ownership. Puppy social school not a choice. Adult dog training classes by registered trainers for at least the first two years. All dogs registered, desexed {unless a very good reason} and microchipped. Aggressive dogs MUST be seen by a qualified dog trainer well versed in treating aggression at least twice a year.

ENFORCE leash laws. Dog that have previously attacked or shown actual aggression to be muzzled in public. All dog on leashes at all times, NO exceptions whatsoever.

ENFORCE dog fighting and responsibility laws. Extremely heavy penalities for dog fighting, illegal breeding, providing dogs/pups to known fighters, overcrowding of dogs, poor breeding environment.

However, it is far easier for a government to admit that it's not their problem than to help the situation.

Moreover, plenty of cities and states have found that the only thing that banning breeds has done is decrease public hysteria. It costs a city over $750,000 a year to maintain a breed ban, only for the end result of making the public *mistakingly* think that they're safe.
A study in scotland about dangerous dogs showed that after banning pitbulls, there was no decrease in dog attacks, but rather an increase in what type of dog was attacking.
There are hundreds of articles about it if you search Google.

Dogs will always bite. The only way you can have a ZERO bite rate in any country, state or city is to ban every single breed of dog that there is.
Will it ever reach that state? Yes, most likely.
All the pitbulls are gone? Yes, but German Shepherds now bite the most. Okay, ban them.
All the Shepherds are gone. Now huskies bite the most. Ban them.
All the huskies are gone. Now Golden Retrievers bite the most. Ban.
Yes, eventually it will reach the stage where the only way you are safe from any animal attack or death from an animal is to ban every single pet and to live in a plastic bubble.

By then, you'll have lost all of your rights completely.

Yes, all the nasty evil killer pitbulls will be gone....but so will your Chihuahua. So will your Labrador. So will your Lowchen. And you'll never, ever get them back.

Stand up for one breed and you stand up for all breeds.
Save one breed and you save all breeds.
Demand the rights of your neighbour's dog and you get the rights to own your own dog.

 

[Jeikobu]

I am in agreement with pitbulls being banned everywhere. Just look at all the cases of them attacking people. Many seem fine for a long time and then suddenly they attack for no reason. A human life is more important than a dog's. I adore animals, but they can't compare to people and we have to put their safety first. I realize not every pitbull may attack someone during the course of their life, but it's not worth the great risk.

 

[DreamQueen]

I am in agreement with pitbulls being banned everywhere. Just look at all the cases of them attacking people. Many seem fine for a long time and then suddenly they attack for no reason. A human life is more important than a dog's. I adore animals, but they can't compare to people and we have to put their safety first. I realize not every pitbull may attack someone during the course of their life, but it's not worth the great risk.

I assume then that you will be in agreement of a worldwide ban on:

Labradors https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-injuries-Labrador-savages-Poole-Harbour.html

Golden Retrievers https://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/12275--3-year-old-child-mauled-by-dog

Great Danes https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-snatched-mothers-arms-mauled-Great-Dane.html

Poodles https://www.wboc.com/story/10769319/girl-7-hospitalized-after-poodle-attack?redirected=true

Jack Russell Terriers https://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2010/March/Cairn or JRT mix 0310.pdf

Saint Bernards https://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2010/Februrary/st bernard 0210.pdf

Weimeramers https://www.understand-a-bull.com/A...ecember/Toddler killed by Weimeramer 1209.pdf

Greyhounds https://www.understand-a-bull.com/A...as vicious after killing another dog 1109.pdf

Collies https://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2009/October/collie 1009.pdf

Chihuahuas https://www.understand-a-bull.com/A...looses both legs after chi bites her 1109.pdf

And any breed that has been found to have ever bitten more than once.

Yes?

That's how much sense a pitbull ban makes.

 

[Livewire]

I assume then that you will be in agreement of a worldwide ban on:

Labradors https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-injuries-Labrador-savages-Poole-Harbour.html

Golden Retrievers https://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/12275--3-year-old-child-mauled-by-dog

Great Danes https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-snatched-mothers-arms-mauled-Great-Dane.html

Poodles https://www.wboc.com/story/10769319/girl-7-hospitalized-after-poodle-attack?redirected=true

Jack Russell Terriers https://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2010/March/Cairn or JRT mix 0310.pdf

Saint Bernards https://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2010/Februrary/st bernard 0210.pdf

Weimeramers https://www.understand-a-bull.com/A...ecember/Toddler killed by Weimeramer 1209.pdf

Greyhounds https://www.understand-a-bull.com/A...as vicious after killing another dog 1109.pdf

Collies https://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/2009/October/collie 1009.pdf

Chihuahuas https://www.understand-a-bull.com/A...looses both legs after chi bites her 1109.pdf

And any breed that has been found to have ever bitten more than once.

Yes?

That's how much sense a pitbull ban makes.

Because people get mauled by Chihuahua's all the time. I'm not for an outright ban, but to not see the obvious fact that they are a violent breed that needs special attention is foolish.

 

[Kura]

I don't think they should be banned either. I'd much rather see them under the same law that we have here; that they need to have a muzzle if taken outdoors.

Unfortunately.. dog fights are illegal activity.. and it should not matter what dogs they use as the act should be barred entirely. People who participate in those would probably not follow the "no pitbull" law anyways.. or just continue with a different dog.