Banning pit bulls?

[Carlos]

So there's a debate going on in my local area about pit bulls. Right now, in Fort Thomas, KY, consideration is being given to lifting the existing ban on these dogs. At the same time, Cincinnati is talking about the possibility of reinstating a previous ban. Several weeks ago a six year old girl was attacked by two dogs (pits) who mauled her, putting her in critical condition and essentially removing her face.

So...banning the breed...I have to say I'm against it. I'm of a firm opinion that the dogs are not the problem. It's the owners. I've met several pits and they have been the sweetest, cuddliest, people loving dogs. However, I've also met some who were problem dogs. The thing bout the problem dogs though is that their people were problem owners.

Bad ownership can range from simple neglect (locking a dog out in a kennel 24/7 with no human interaction) to active abuse (beating the animal or using them for fighting) to purposefully training aggressive behavior (making the dog a weapon to protect illegal activities or even just to establish a "tough guy" rep) to just plain ignorance (having a dog who is a legitimate problem but not having the good sense to recognize and/or deal with the behavioral issues).

I feel confident saying that probably every example of a problem dog or dog who attacked (assuming it isn't feral) belongs to someone in one of those categories. That is regardless of whether or not the dog is a pit, a mix, a GSD or a lab.
Are there well meaning people who care for their dogs but the dog still becomes a problem? Sure, but if they don't deal with it I place them in the neglect or ignorance category.

As far as pits are concerned, I've observed two types of people who gravitate toward the breed: the people who recognize the loyal, loving companionship the breed is inclined to in a proper environment and who desire to spread the word that these dogs are lovers and not fighters...and the people who see the dogs as tough, intimidating dogs who can enhance their street cred or thug lifestyle.
I dare say that the vast majority of pits who attack were raised by the latter. With the "thug" raising the dog to be a thug dog, you end up with a dangerous animal, not because the breed is more inclined to act badly but because this type of dog owner is more inclined to choose a pit.

Now, do I think something should be done to prevent more little girls from being attacked? Absolutely.

However, I don't think the answer lies in banning a single breed. I think the answer lies in making the owners more accountable for the actions of their animals.
Even the Bible promotes this idea. God told Moses that if an ox kills someone else's ox, the living ox should be sold and the money and the dead ox would be split between the owners. However, if the offending ox has a history of fighting and the owner doesn't keep it contained, the owner of the dead ox takes all (Exodus 21:35-36).
So my proposal, if your dog (regardless of breed) attacks another animal then you are liable for the damages (vet fees etc.). If investigation determines that you neglected to contain a dog known to be aggressive or that you encouraged such behavior, add heavy fines. If the dog attacks a person, you are not only liable monetarily but if investigations reveal that you knew about or encouraged the dogs aggression (whether through "training" or abuse etc.) then you can be charged with assault as you are just as guilty as the dog. If the victim dies you could be tried for 2nd degree murder as the blood is truly on your hands for not being responsible for your dog.

Granted, if the offense is the dogs first sign of aggression or it can be shown that the owner was truly diligent in attempting to deal with the issue, charges shouldn't be brought.

Furthermore, I would also seriously consider supporting laws that state if you are charged with running an illegal operation from your home (drug dealing etc.) and a truly aggressive dog is found in the house, the dog should be removed, rehabilitated and hopefully rehomed while further charges are brought against the owner for using an aggressive dog in conjunction with illegal operations.

Well this his post ended up much longer than I anticipated but that's my proposal for the "dangerous breed" debate. I think it's the better option for several reasons. One, pits aren't the only dogs who attack and holding owners accountable could lead to owners of problem dogs of other breeds becoming more diligent in dealing with their dogs. It would also make it a punishable offense to raise your dog to be aggressive or to have it as a "thug dog."

To me, this deals with the real issue. Banning an otherwise sweet breed does little to nothing to solve the problem, throws blame in the wrong direction and tarnishes the reputation of a great breed of dog.

If you're going to own a dog large enough to hurt someone, raise it to be a lover. Otherwise, face the consequences if you fail to keep it contained.

[fan of fanboys]

I agree 100% with your post. I am against anything that limits freedom and choice.

The problem with pits, as your stated, is the owners and not the dogs. Right now pits are popular with a certain type of owner. There was a time that German shepherds and rottweilers were popular in a similar capacity.

Punish the owners, not the dogs.

[Carlos]

I agree 100% with your post. I am against anything that limits freedom and choice.

The problem with pits, as your stated, is the owners and not the dogs. Right now pits are popular with a certain type of owner. There was a time that German shepherds and rottweilers were popular in a similar capacity.

Punish the owners, not the dogs.

Exactly! At that time, those breeds also got a lot of negative hype for being biters (notice a patten?)
GSDs have made the transition to more of a suburban family dog while Rotties seem to be in limbo between the two worlds. Unfortunately, the pit breeds are currently the thug's breed of choice.

[fan of fanboys]

It is not a very simple issue but there are a lot of dogs that bite as well. Some do not have the same capacity for damage, some are not reported by the media because "dachsund bites child" is not as sensational of a title, and some people just don't expect so it is not viewed as wide spread. My son was bit in face by a lab and resulted in 27 stitches and just missed blinding him. The potential for damage is always there with any breed. Many dog bites go unreported and some dog attacks are not pit bulls per se but other bully breeds or mix or sometimes even something diff but saying pit bull elicits a response.

I just did a google search for "baby killed by dog" and here are results in order (i skipped where same story was reported in a row)

Sheriff: Baby killed by family dog in Davisburg - Fox 2 News Headlines
did nto mentioned dog's breed until 8th paragraph, and not a pit. if was pit would be in title or first line.

Baby Killed by Dog
that links to 3 stories. they say "family dog" when it is not a pit. first two are not pit and the 3rd they are pretty sure it is a pit bull mix.

Eliza-Mae Mullane: Six-day-old baby killed by pet dog in Pontyberem, Camarthenshire | Metro News
not a pit

Baby boy dies after being mauled by dog; animal to be euthanized | The Detroit News
family hunting dog

Family dogs kill baby on West Side | The Columbus Dispatch
not a pit


that is every store on 1st page of results, again omitting where same story was in multiple links, and at best (worst?) one is a pit mix. but again no one thinks much when a retriever attacks a person because we all assume is rare.

I don't have answer but like most things pit bulls are being sensationalized by the media some.

[fan of fanboys]

The Davisburg one I linked first must be recent because it was 3-4 of the results.

[fan of fanboys]

And I think some is capacity for damage. Here is a picture of my son's face after he was bit. This is just one side, there was stitches on other side too. But look how close he came to being blinded. And I think in exact same situation the pit bite would have been worse because of their teeth are more aggressive and their bite is stronger.
picture is too big so here is link
https://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/...pse2870f77.jpg

[Carlos]

And I think some is capacity for damage. Here is a picture of my son's face after he was bit. This is just one side, there was stitches on other side too. But look how close he came to being blinded. And I think in exact same situation the pit bite would have been worse because of their teeth are more aggressive and their bite is stronger.
picture is too big so here is link
https://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/...pse2870f77.jpg

Oh man!! That's a nasty bite! Glad he's ok aside from the stitches!

[fan of fanboys]

Oh man!! That's a nasty bite! Glad he's ok aside from the stitches!

Thanks. That happened Jan of 2013 and he had turned 3 few months prior. It bothered me and wife more than it bothered him. He is getting a respectable amount of money out of it from dog owner's insurance. We set it up so it is made in payments every 4 years starting when he turns 18 with last one at 26.

[Labradorks]

Carlos, while I mostly agree with your post, I have some food for thought...

First, I agree 100% that the vast majority of owners of dogs with a bite/aggression history have owners that should not have dogs. I fouind this:

"Several studies determined that pit bull owners, and owners of other "vicious" or "high risk" breeds (most commonly identified as Akita, Chow Chow, Doberman Pinscher, Rottweiler, and Wolf-mix), are more likely to have criminal convictions and are more likely to display antisocial behaviors. A 2006 study compared owners of "high risk" dogs to owners of "low risk" dogs. "High risk" dogs included “vicious” dogs by breed (e.g., pit bulls) or “vicious” actions (e.g., any dog that had bitten, attacked, or killed a person or other animal). The study determined that "high risk" dog owners had nearly 10 times as many criminal convictions than did "low risk" dog owners.[38] A 2009 study[39] and a followup 2012 study generally supported these findings[40]."

My thoughts regarding this are: 1. Where are the resources coming from to rehab the aggressive dogs or aggressive-bred found in a home with criminal activity? Especially while there are plenty of pit bulls in shelters that have not shown aggression who are waiting for homes (pits are the most often euthanized breed of dog in shelters). and 2. How are these people going to pay any vet bills or hospital bills? Most criminals don't have that kind of money nor do they comply with the law. So, while they may be liable, the person is pretty much SOL when it comes to that reimbursement.

These dogs were bred to fight with and kill other dogs. Unfortunately, the dog-fighting rings and those who want to breed vicious, tough dogs, have continued to breed the "best" fighters. The majority of pit bull maulings and killings toward humans have been children, and we all know that dogs don't always see children as human or leaders, even our beloved Labs sometimes treat kids like other dogs -- which fortunately usually results only in rough play and maybe some humping. Quite a lot of these child maulings and killings are children that the dog knows. There are good breeders out there that breed and show wonderful pits, but, like with Labs, the vast majority of pits out there are not bred by good, ethical breeders. I have met many wonderful people who adopt a pit or pix-mix puppy from the shelther with the best intentions, and end up with a dog-aggressive adult. Draw a parallel to Labs. Since the beginning of (Lab) time, they have been bred to retrieve. They know how to do it as a puppy, without being taught. I have a one year old pup who was bred for conformation, many generations. Not a field Lab, or a Lab with a hunting title in sight in his pedigree. Yet, I discovered at 10 months of age that he is birdy, and it was nothing I taught him. It's just not easy to breed out of a dog what they were bred to do. Both the good, and the bad.

I personally think that the first time a dog (regardless of breed) shows aggression toward a dog or a cat (an actual attack that does not kill or seriously injure another animal but sends it to the vet) they should be fined and pay for the vet bills. I believe that if you purchase a dog that is bred to kill other animals, you should be prepared. Perhaps pit bull (and other "vicious breed") owners need to carry insurance and, like cars, should show proof on a tag and can be fined for not carrying that proof of insurance? Some of that insurance money can include a small fee toward the local humane socieity that is in charge with re-homing and rehabbing all these pits. I also believe that if a pit bull -- or any dog, for that matter -- viciously kills a cat or another dog, it should be euthanized, as well as fined and have to pay any related vet bills (obviously, no fine if it's that person's own pet). Many pits who have killed or seriously injured a human also have a recent history of dog and cat aggression, and usually it's a serious injury or a kill.

At the end of the day, if backyard breeders and puppy mills are banned, I think many of these issues will go away. There will be illegal breeding rings, sure, but there will still be a population decrease in vicious dogs if we put breeding in the hands of the professionals.

[arentspowell]

I think your proposals require a little more legal background. Assault (which actually doesn't have to result in any harmful contact at all, just apprehension of that contact) is an intentional act, you can't assault (or batter) someone through your dog unless you deliberately sic'ed your dog on someone. Mistreating or abusing a dog wouldn't result in an assault or battery. Same thing with second degree murder, it's an intentional act. The most you would be able to get is negligent homicide. Lots of factors come into play. Because of due process you wouldn't be able to impose strict liability on something so serious.