This probably belongs in a different thread, but my take on it is this: vets have an agenda, and it often skews the facts. They say pets live longer if altered...well, they're basing this on the fact that they cannot get reproductive cancer in organs that they don't have. I always liken it to chopping off your head to prevent brain tumors. Never fails! But, is it really worth it? I think I'll take my chances w/the tumor.

I have one neutered dog. I waited until he was 5 years old, and he had to be neutered, and I was sickened by the physical changes just weeks later. Those hormones are needed for so many aspects of health and function that I think it's terribly naiive to think that removing a whole body system doesn't change a dog drastically. Senility, joint/bone problems, dysplasia, etc., are all problems that can be caused/exacerbated by spaying/neutering. Done too early, many behavioral effects are noted-often, the very ones the dog was altered to prevent! I think like Pit Bulls, the responsibility in preventing unwanted litters lies w/the individual in charge of the dog.
http://saveourdogs.net/health.html

Ahh well, I started the thread, I don't mind derailing it to poll people for knowledge.

Interesting take. It reminds me of the "tonsil" debate. Until a few decades ago, tonsils were removed at the first sign of trouble. Then the medical profession as a whole realized that they were damaging the immune system of thousands of people each year. Woops, you mean those actually DO something? Hmmm...

While I agree with you completely on the responsibility, I am frustrated by the failure of society en masse to BE responsible. This doesn't make me change my views on who's responsible, but it frustrates the heck out of me.

I know any government enforced options are not viable (as has been pointed out numerous times, current laws are only barely enforced). The consumer dog market has to stand up and say "We want dogs of X quality", it seems like the only way to put the dangerous backyard breeders out of work. But there will always be that market for cheap, broken product.

For all those who sometimes mutter "I wish the government would license dog owners, not dogs": Be careful what you wish for! From today's news on the Radio Prague website:

"Plans are being discussed to tighten restrictions on dog ownership in the Czech Republic, following a pit bull terrier killing its owner at the weekend. Josef Hovorka was fatally attacked by his dog when he tried to feed it on Sunday. Now, MP Michaela Sojdrova has suggested that dog owners should be subject to tighter regulations. She proposes that each dog should be implanted with a microchip, so that its owner is more easily traceable. Similarly, all those wishing to own a dog would, according to her suggestions, first have to undergo a psychological test."

Makes me think of that George Orwell fellow.

Sorry to bring the topic back to "Pit Bulls", but I though this bit of information is very relevent to the conundrum as a whole.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/08/prweb549276.htm

National Canine Research Council Examines the Pit Bull Paparazzi: Fear vs. Fact
A study by the National Canine Research Council reveals biased reporting by the media, its devastating consequences for dogs and the toll it takes on public safety.

Slanesville, WV (PRWEB) August 25, 2007 -- A study by the National Canine Research Council reveals biased reporting by the media, its devastating consequences for dogs and the toll it takes on public safety.

Consider how the media reported four incidents that happened between August 18th and August 21st:

August 18, 2007 -
A Labrador mix attacked a 70-year-old man sending him to the hospital in critical condition. Police officers arrived at the scene and the dog was shot after charging the officers.

This incident was reported in ONE (1) article and only in the local paper.

August 19, 2007 -
A 16-month old child received fatal head and neck injuries after being attacked by a mixed breed dog.

This attack was reported TWO (2) times by the local paper only.

August 20, 2007 -
A 6-year-old boy is hospitalized after having his ear torn off and receiving severe bites to the head by a medium-sized mixed breed dog.

This attack was reported in ONE (1) article and only in the local paper.

August 21, 2007 -
A 59-year-old woman was attacked in her home by two Pit bulls and was hospitalized with severe injuries.

This attack was reported in over two hundred and thirty (230) articles in national and international newspapers, as well as major television news networks, including CNN, MSNBC and FOX.

"Clearly a fatal attack by an unremarkable breed is not nearly as newsworthy as a non-fatal attack by a Pit bull," says Karen Delise, researcher for the National Canine Research Council.


The National Canine Research Council reports that people routinely cite media coverage as "proof" that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs. Delise says costly and ineffective public policy decisions are being made on the basis of such "proof". While this biased reporting is not only lethal to an entire population of dogs; sensationalized media coverage endangers the public by misleading them about the real factors in canine aggression.
About The National Canine Research Council
The National Canine Research Council investigates all reported cases of fatal dog attacks in the United States. Serious analysis and discussion of canine aggression cannot be conducted from information acquired from media sources.

For accurate and in depth information on verified cases of fatal dog attacks and the circumstances contributing to these incidents, please go to the National Canine Research Council at: http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com

That's not at all surprising. Good post, Jonathan.

This has been quite the story in my area: http://www.carmelpinecone.com/070824-1.html

Frankly, given the weirdness around here I'm surprised the dog was not euthanized. However, if this had been a pitbull you know what the outcome would have been.

I know Sarah, it's pretty sad isn't it? The "PB type dog" is the most misunderstood and un-luckiest of all breeds. As far as their un-deserved reputation goes at least.

I'm interested in hearing suggestions on how to improve the BSL situation from members who don't agree with owner licensing. Besides saying "don't put up with it", but a real live solution.

That's my question as well Alex. I am just fine with the "leave me alone, I can handle my situation and let everyone else fend for themselves" approach on this and a lot of other things for that matter. My problem is that it eventually will rear it's ugly head in my life some day, whether it be a BSL in my town or insurance trouble. I plan to always have two GSD's for my lifetime, and I love the area where I live. There is no easy black and white answer, just a lot of gray.

 Quote: alex corral

... I'm interested in hearing suggestions on how to improve the BSL situation from members who don't agree with owner licensing. Besides saying "don't put up with it", but a real live solution.

http://www.leerburg.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=133&Number=76622&Searchpage=1&Main=8252&Words=%26quot%3Banimal+control%26quot%3B+Will+Rambeau&topic=0&Search=true#Post76622

How about drafting laws that impose swift, harsh, and non-negotiable penalties on owners who act irresponsibly by allowing their dogs to act irresponsibly?

Will it stop attacks, maulings, or deaths entirely? No, not any more than drug laws have stopped drug use and trafficking or age limits have stopped minors from drinking or drunk driving laws have stopped stupid people from getting behind the wheel plastered.

I think most responsible people, if they KNEW there was severe penalty for an out-of-control dog, would make damn sure they knew their dog, and not merely as the bundle of fur lying on the carpet. They'd pay attention, put in the time, and go through the training. Or they'd opt not to own a dog.

As for the others, there will always be a segment of the population who is either too stupid or too evil to care about personal responsibilty so I say remove them from society...make it permanent or make it for a very long time...but make it hurt.

This thread has taken a few turns so I may be repeating what's already been said.

Johnathan, my new best friend! This is what I've been ranting for oh-so-long, but unable to find stats to support my theory! Awesome post!