BSL/Dog Bites/"Dangerouse Breeds"

[DogPaddle]

Let's assume that "dangerous breeds" are those that are listed by insurance companies, SPCAs and CDC as more likely to bite. This list would likely include:
Chained Dogs
Unnuetered Males
Pit Type Dogs and Crosses
Rotties
GSD
Huskie and Malamute Type Dogs
Dobies
Chows
Akitas
and apparently
Saints and Great Danes (this occurs on CDC study but I encountered it on less insurance sites - frankly this seems odd to me)
These are the dogs listed on many sites as most likely to bite and/or most likely to do significant damage according to many insurance groups and the CDC.

What is the best way to deal with the issue of "dangerous breeds" and dog bites or attacks on people/pets/livestock in your opinion. Please keep in mind that your solution should take into account how to determine what breed a dog is or how we are to know if a given dog is a part of the list unless your solution would work by applying to all breeds/owners/breeders equally. Also understand that we are not dealing strictly with dog people when laws are passed so these are the people you would be pitching your idea too. Also your idea should be reasonable easy and inexpensive to implement or chances are people won't do it. The goal should be to [i]appease[/i] people pushing for BSL and ensure public safety.

If we can come up with something good I would be very interested in proposing it to any group in my general area that is investigating or pursuing BSL.

[Malamum]

I selected other. I don't really believe that there is a specific breed of dog that is more likely to bite. However there are breeds that are more capable of causing a serious injury when they do bite.

[Guest Anonymous]

I think that in a given situations certain dogs are more likely to bite, but it has more to do with that dogs temperment, training, and socialization, then the breed.

[KP]

I chose other because I couldn't choose both chained dogs and unneutered male. I feel that certain breeds do have more of a tendency to become aggressive if not raised properly (which actually could be any breed) BUT I feel more often than anything its for these reasons that dogs become dangerous. Chained or unneutured....

Pits I feel are just feared because of their powerful jaw. I don't feel it has much anything to do with them being seen as more aggressive.

I feel most of these dogs are targeted because of their size. Look how many toy breeds are aggressive because of how they are raised yet you don't hear a thing about them and how they are more often than not aggressive.

[DogPaddle]

So does anyone have any suggestions on how to address the dog bite issue, public safety and legislation.

[kendalyn]

Most places already have laws regarding dogs with a history of being dangerous. Those laws just need to be enforced in my opinion.

As far as preventing bites, the only way for that to happen is for people to train and socialize their dogs. I would be against any legislation that tries to enforce this. Mainly because it would be too hard to enforce and it would just further burden the responsible owners. It would just be another law that the irresponsible people won't follow anyway and will be a big pain to the good dog owners.

[courtnek]

I chose all of the above, because the dogs listed are larger, and more capable of causing a serious bite incident. HOWEVER, ALL dogs can bite. No matter the size. The problem is that the bigger dogs cause more serious injury, so they get reported as opposed to the little dogs, who's injury is somewhat slighter and most people dont report them.

Now for my opinion...I think anyone who wants to own a dog, and cannot pass a basic muster on dogs and training, should be REQUIRED to take the dog to formal obedience classes. No exception, no matter what kind of dog.
this goes for mixes as well as purebreds....

second, ALL breeders should be required to be licensed. And unless you are a LICENSED breeder, or can prove you are showing the dog, it should be required to be neutered. I may get flamed for it...but I think this will help keep the number of "mutt" Pit Mixes down, so the media can find something else to waste their time on....

and the number of rottie mixes and GSD mixes, that were not bred correctly and have "issues"....and yes, I would buy licenses for my Lab Mix and Foxhound to make it fair to everybody...

[DogPaddle]

I agree that starting with the breeder's is a good way to go - licencing, guidelines etc possibly a mandatory course would all be great as would increased enforcement of existing laws and an improvement of current animal cruelty laws and massive public education. I don't know if it would solve the problem but this would be an ok way to start.

[Doglistener]

I have posted this before however in another context and I believe it is revelant to this debate therefore I hope you will bear with me re the repeat.

[quote]The following figures are meant not as a reflection on the many millions of dog owners in the USA who do care who do love their dogs and who are responsible owners and great lovers of the dog. Bit nonetheless they are frightening statistics.

America with a population 4 times the size of the UK Approximately 250 Million against 62 Million. Yet they have 67 Million dogs against our 8.2 Million.

That is twice as many per household and the UK is supposed to be a nation of dog lovers? The sad facts are that more dogs per annum are euthanised in the States than is owned in total in the UK 8.6 MILLION put to sleep every year.

For every dog born in the USA only 50% will reach it's 2nd birthday, these statistics are not pretty reading and I think that their is some major reason for the figures and some major fundamental changes needed.

In the UK we have a powerful belief in Spaying and Neutering at an early age, we also emphasise socialisation classes and obedience training. Therefore we do not get the amount of unwanted litters and pregnancies that you get, reflected in our record on euthanasia, which is very much better.

Please take the above facts in the spirit they were intended and not as a reflection or condemnation of your great nation or people or on any of your abilities to own and care for a dog.[/quote]

Courtnek wrote
[quote]Now for my opinion...I think anyone who wants to own a dog, and cannot pass a basic muster on dogs and training, should be REQUIRED to take the dog to formal obedience classes. No exception, no matter what kind of dog.
this goes for mixes as well as purebreds....

second, ALL breeders should be required to be licensed. And unless you are a LICENSED breeder, or can prove you are showing the dog, it should be required to be neutered. I may get flamed for it...but I think this will help keep the number of "mutt" Pit Mixes down, so the media can find something else to waste their time on....

and the number of rottie mixes and GSD mixes, that were not bred correctly and have "issues"....and yes, I would buy licenses for my Lab Mix and Foxhound to make it fair to everybody...[/quote]

I agree Courtnek I would also include mandatory licencing for owners and tattoo and tag identification for all dogs at birth. If they arne't tattooed and tagged then they are rounded up and destroyed. I would also insist on formal socialisation classes for pups AND owners, if they can't afford it or can't spare the time then they shouldn't own a dog, get a goldfish instead. Any dog convicted of aggression towards dogs or people should be automatically neutered/spayed so the aggressive genes cannot be passed on to future generation that will also make the breeders and owners more careful in their training and maintenance of the dog.

Harsh! Perhaps? but it will stop some of these shocking statistics As a matter of interest I voted for all of the above.

[kendalyn]

Courtnek Wrote:
[quote]Now for my opinion...I think anyone who wants to own a dog, and cannot pass a basic muster on dogs and training, should be REQUIRED to take the dog to formal obedience classes. No exception, no matter what kind of dog.
this goes for mixes as well as purebreds....

second, ALL breeders should be required to be licensed. And unless you are a LICENSED breeder, or can prove you are showing the dog, it should be required to be neutered. I may get flamed for it...but I think this will help keep the number of "mutt" Pit Mixes down, so the media can find something else to waste their time on....
[/quote]

Do you think that this will be enforceable? Animal control currently can't keep dogs from being starved to death, dumped on the streets, and abused. It would be nearly impossible for them to check that everybody's dog is spayed and neutered and is not being bred without a license. And what do you do when people are discovered to own a dog who isn't spayed or neutered and hasn't been to obedience class? Do you take the dog away? Well, now you have more dogs in the custody of animal control who will be put to sleep if they can't be adopted out.

I agree something needs to be done though. I would rather start with education, education, education. I don't think forcing someone to go to obedience classes would work. You have to make it something they want to do. They would also have to be fairly inexpensive. Same thing with spaying and neutering. You would have to give people an incentive to do it. Maybe some obedience trainers would agree to get together and hold large very basic obedience classes for free every few months. With a lot of attention by the local media I bet a lot of people would come. But you cannot make it compulsory. People have to want to do it. The fastest way to effect changes in the attitude toward dog ownership is by making it socially unacceptable to have a dog that is not "fixed" or does not have basic manners. Obviously, this is a lot harder to do than making blanket legislation, but I believe it would work better.

[courtnek]

yes it would be enforceable...the counties can handle it, the same way they handle rabies vacs...if you dont get your dog rabies shots, the county comes after you BIG time....the dog would have to wear a tag, the way they are required to have rabies tags, or proof of innoculation now. If the dog is involved in a biting incident, and he is not tagged, then the owner gets a HUGE fine and possibly jail time. same as if they are breeding without a license. sure, it wont solve ALL the problems, no amount of laws will. But the majority of decent people will not mind if they know that this
is for the good of everybody, and the dog bite ratio could go down. Most people dont take their dogs to training because they feel they can do it themselves. Alot of the web rescues and societies already require it for the strong, dominant dogs, and you have to prove you did it. I think the breeders should require it too. and the licensed breeders who are breeding dogs that become violent can also be checked. This of course will not affect the thugs and drug dealers and losers, who dont follow the law as it is, but it becomes easier to shut them down and jail them if they are not following the rules, before someone gets bitten. It would also make it easier to pinpoint the dogfighters, who I seriously doubt would follow the laws, and shut them down as well. Something has to be done. Education has been tried, most people pay no attention to it until it directly affects them. I think if someone wants to adopt out a dog and doesnt agree to have it trained, and prove it, they dont get the dog. And I believe that the neutering law would end up with less dogs in shelters, because there will be less dogs around. People are basically lazy - we here are dog lovers and follow the rules already. This would make the lazy ones either decide to comply, or not get a dog. either choice is ok by me.

[kendalyn]

[quote]the counties can handle it, the same way they handle rabies vacs...if you dont get your dog rabies shots, the county comes after you BIG time[/quote]

How do they come after you? Here the only way animal control would find out is if your dog were involved in an incident where animal control was needed. Probably only a biting incident or if someone complained about your dog for something. They don't go door to door checking for tags. I really don't think they have the resources to do this.

[quote]If the dog is involved in a biting incident, and he is not tagged, then the owner gets a HUGE fine and possibly jail time. same as if they are breeding without a license[/quote]

A fine yes but I'm not comfortable with putting more people in already crowded jails who are clearly not dangerous to society. As a tax payer it is just too expensive to pay for these people to sit in jail and have the added possibility of losing their job or even children and therefore going on welfare and medicaid. Two more things taxpayers pay for.

Yes, maybe the bite ratio would go down, simply because less people are owning dogs and as a consequence there are less dogs period. A vast majority would be put to sleep by animal control.

Mandating obedience training kind of irks me because I've been to obedience classes before and they were awful. In fact, I would say probably detrimental to someone who knew nothing about training a dog. I know there are good and bad ones around, but if there are only classes that directly conflict with someone's style of training, why should they be forced to attend? I have never taken Buck to formal obedience training and wouldn't unless he had a behavioral issue that I couldn't handle on my own. I can see mandating it maybe for first time dog owners, or maybe if there were a way to "test out" of it. I don't think everybody should be mandated to do it for every dog they own.

[DogPaddle]

Personally, I'm after pitchable suggestions. So the ideas have to be fairly simple to implement, not too expensive and something I can convince municipalities to actually implement. I think its going to be very difficult to pitch some of these ideas. (Not that I wouldn't like to see some of them implemented but I just don't see some of these otherwise excellent suggestions being actually implemented.)

[courtnek]

[quote]I can see mandating it maybe for first time dog owners, or maybe if there were a way to "test out" of it. I don't think everybody should be mandated to do it for every dog they own.
[/quote]

Kendalyn... :lol: that's what I said....

If they cant pass a basic muster (test) on training and obedience then they should be required to have the dog trained professionally....

The counties here are very strict about rabies vacs. If you are more then two weeks late getting it done, they start sending you notices. If on the third notice it still isnt done, they start calling you. If you dont respond,
they will come out and check up on the animal. If you still have the animal, they will give you one last chance to get the vacs, and if it isnt done they take the animal away from you. The same could be done for licensing. I am not saying that everyone needs their dog professionally trained, just owners who cant pass the test. I have never had any of mine pro trained, but mine have never bitten anyone either. This would be a form of education to owners who dont know any better. enforced, yes, but education none the less. And as far as trainers, good or bad, I dont know what can be done about that, although I feel they should be licensed as well. And usually the good breeders and shelters have trainers that they
recommend, so do vets. It's still up to the owners in the long wrong. You're not going to cure every issue with this, I understand that, but I think alot of the major issues would be cut down on this way.

You cant drive a car without being trained and tested. If you violate the rules of the road you can lose your driving priveledges. Owning a dog is a responsibility that needs to be looked at in the same way. This is a living, breathing creature, and deserves to be treated with kindness and respect.
Part of that treatment is training, because he wont know how to behave if you dont tell him.