Actually, the Pit Bulls that are actively fought by the criminal kooks almost never bite humans - they're very strict about this, and any animal that are aggressive towards humans are instantly culled ( the dog fighters don't want to be bitten by the dogs when they attempt to separate them after a fight ).

And folks, this is a numbers game. The amount of fatal human attacks vs. the percentage of Pit Bulls in the general dog population tells the story. Pit Bulls account for a *tiny* percent of overall dog population, but they generally account for between 20% to 25% of the *fatal* dog attacks per year. That's a staggering statistic that is easy for politician's to respond to. Plus almost 80% of fatal attacks happen on children under the age of 12 ( with 19% of fatal attacks occurring on children under the age of one ) which is also a "hot button" to the media and politician's.

I'm lucky, the County for which I served as the chairman of the Animal Control Board was largely rural and we didn't have problems along the breed specific lines. However, the Animal Control officers did euthanize all dogs without identification that were deemed to be pit bulls or pit bull crosses. There was no chance for these animals to ever be adopted. This rule was in place long before I joined the board , the logic being that no one wanted to reintroduce dogs that had already shown a tendency to wander to be allowed back into the general population.

And once again, the problem is with the owners. Mandatory registration with huge fines in place for ignoring the law would go a long way towards keeping the dogs out of the wrong hands. A fee of $50 per year for registration would reduce their population in the wrong hands by 50% ( and give the legal system the chance to remove dogs out of the hands of the people that would be most likely to be involved in dog attacks, i.e., the irresponsible ) . These measures would be a pain for the Pit Bull enthusiast, but it would sure beat an outright breed ban - which is the future of these dogs if things don't change.

BSL scares me. Once you take any segment of society and single it out as less than the rest then you open up the possibility that someday you will wind up being singled out for similar legislation. I keep wondering if the answer might be mandatory training for all dogs over 20lbs. Before I get jumped I do realize that small dogs bite but a large part of what we're dealing with is the perception held by the general public that small dogs are cuddly and large dogs are mean. Large fines and confiscation for unlicensed, untrained dogs seems like a good idea to me.

 Quote:

And once again, the problem is with the owners. Mandatory registration with huge fines in place for ignoring the law would go a long way towards keeping the dogs out of the wrong hands. A fee of $50 per year for registration would reduce their population in the wrong hands by 50% ( and give the legal system the chance to remove dogs out of the hands of the people that would be most likely to be involved in dog attacks, i.e., the irresponsible ) . These measures would be a pain for the Pit Bull enthusiast, but it would sure beat an outright breed ban - which is the future of these dogs if things don't change.

Agreed. Personally I would be willing to pay more than $50/year if this were a GSD discussion, I'm sure pit fans love their pit's as much as I love GSD's. Ofcourse, this could become a problem if you own multiple dog's and can't spare the money - but 4 dogs in itself means 4x the vet bills, 4x the food cost, so you'd think an extra $200/year registration wouldn't be a big deal right?

Unless the law in Miami has changed, Dade County here in FL has banned even bringing Pitbull's into the county entirely. $500 fine for posession and a court process to force removal of an identified pitbull.

I'm not sure I agree that additional restrictions will solve the problem. I think Will's point is well-taken, though-that it will cut into the problem considerably. Seems to me that there are similar arguments and restrictions regarding handguns. Still plenty of handgun homicide to go 'round, and fines, mandatory minimums, prison terms, and a whole range of other stiff penalties don't cut into it much. (For the record, I think concealed-carry programs DO; arm the law-abiding, and you make victim selection alot more difficult...)

Unfortunately, the law only restricts those who are willing to obey it, and chances are those aren't the ones whose conduct you're trying to reach. The folks who pay the price are the law-abiding people who would train their dogs anyway.

Miami/Dade has made it illegal to acquire a new pit bull since 1990. From the info I have, "failure to register, muzzle, confine and insure a pit bull is a violation and subject to severe penelty." But they all also classify pit bulls and any pit mix as dangerous.

 Quote:

I'm not sure I agree that additional restrictions will solve the problem. I think Will's point is well-taken, though-that it will cut into the problem considerably. Seems to me that there are similar arguments and restrictions regarding handguns. Still plenty of handgun homicide to go 'round, and fines, mandatory minimums, prison terms, and a whole range of other stiff penalties don't cut into it much. (For the record, I think concealed-carry programs DO; arm the law-abiding, and you make victim selection alot more difficult...)

Unfortunately, the law only restricts those who are willing to obey it, and chances are those aren't the ones whose conduct you're trying to reach. The folks who pay the price are the law-abiding people who would train their dogs anyway.

I fully understand every point of view in this whole thread, even the reasoning behind destroying the entire breed, I don't agree with it, but I can understand the thinking behind it.

However, there are 4 types of pit owners out there in my opinion... in fact, it could probably cross over to any breed, but this topic is discussing pit's specifically.

1. People who have good pits that just don't have the temprement to pose a threat so even a lack of training wouldn't really be a huge issue other than driving the handler insane with a dog that doesn't listen in the home. I'm sure this is rare but I am also sure it happens.

2. People who have pits that could potentially pose a risk to others, but train the dog and raise it correctly to be a good social friendly dog, or at least controlled if it is an aggressive dog and handled in a correct and responsible manner.

3. Pet owners wanting the "tough" pitbull image, but have no understanding of dog training or handling, in extreme's on one end they don't really care about the dog because he lives in the fenced in yard and obedience is of no concern because the dog is never in the house and doesn't really go for walks because there's a big yard to run around. This is a category I would consider to have a long stretch between one extreme to the other, some people will treat the dog very well even though they are incorrectly handling the dog, some treat the dog very badly, regardless, they don't know what they're doing and therefore fall into this category.

4. Animal abuse cases, dog fighters, back yard breeders, dogs that are made to be aggressive, dogs that get taser'd to make them more aggressive, etc etc etc.

Now, Category 1 and 2 are generally not a big deal. Category 3 is where I believe 95% of the pitbull reputation comes from. Category 4, although cruel and illegal - its already illegal, but it still happens, IMO additional legislation won't really make all that much difference, it'll just drive it further underground, as mentioned before, this isn't where the problem bites come from, however, this IS where the bloodlines are getting screwed up. I think that existing laws and future laws should focus on category 3 owners, this is where annual licensing fees could help, these are the dogs that are running around neighborhoods unleashed and unsupervised, these are the ones that are attacking children or lashing out at other dogs.

The way to go that I think would work best to deter category 3 from existing is to have a $50-100/year licensing fee for pitbull's and waive this fee for individuals who have their dogs achieve something similar to the Canine Good Citizen Award, but perhaps extend it to requiring off-leash obedience under distraction, but disallow this till the dog is, say, 14-18 months old, to prevent inexperienced owners from rushing their dogs training by hard compulsion to avoid the licensing fee as quickly as possible. People who are responsible pet owners shouldn't mind training their dog to this extent, people who don't want to train their dog's hopefully won't want to pay the $100/year fee. This would leave Category 4, which has already been decided to be almost impossible to enforce if people are determined to fight this breed of dog.

DISCLAIMER: This post does not express the views of anyone other than myself and my dog who always agrees with me except when I tell him to stop stealing coasters off the coffee table, its intent is not to argue or contradict the opinions, views or facts stated by other discussion forum contributors. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I think some of the "Anti-BSL legislation" backlash is a bit to blame, too. I have heard a lot of people in the general public spout the line "they aren't mean-it is people that make them mean" and "they are just the same as any other dog". Add to that a general public and media that lumps dog to human and dog to dog aggression in the same category. There seems to be a segment of the population of well meaning(albeit ill-informed) dog-owners that get some breeds without realizing that there are things about them that make safely training and containing them more of challenge, expense and prerequisite than other types of dogs. I think if there was a little more up-front honesty about the history, capabilities and tendancies of some breeds it would be better. It seems to be very un-PC to mention at all that some dogs have a greater tendancy to dog aggression and need greater vigilence than the average joe public seems to be prepared to do. The biggest challenge is the "fur-babies" "furkids" "little people in fursuits" attitude that seems to be so popular - if people adopted the attitude that they are dogs, they have teeth and can use them - so be careful, it would be better for dogs. I am talking all dogs here no specific breed.

BSL, as long as it's worded to sharply penalize the animal's owner, would get my vote. Now enforcing it would be another issue altogether.

Being informed and aware is the real solution. "Hey mom, can I go play at Billy's, they just got a new Pit Bull?"... "Hell no."

This would be just like if little Johnny asked to go play at Billy's and try out Billy's dad's new shotgun.

While on the surface, it's the animal owner's responsibility, in the end, it's an individual responsibility NOT to get into a dangerous situation.

Good post, Mike.
Statistics show that almost half the child deaths due to Pit Bull mauling occur with a *chained* dog.
Now I ask myself....just hard hard is it to keep a small child away from a dangerous dog that is chained?
Stupid, stupid parents. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />
And the children pay the price... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

I think the problem is not stupid parents, just stupid kids. No offense, but if a kid will walk close enough to a chained dog to let him bite, then that might just be Darwin reaching out from the grave. . .

Just kidding, but I wouldn't imagine a parent would knowingly let their child be in that situation. I would imagine most of thos happen without the parent being aware of what the child is doing while on a bike ride, playing with friends, walking home from school, things like that. Most families don't have the ability to watch their children enough anymore.