Legislators in Minnesota are considering regulations to ban five “dangerous dog breeds” in the state. That is, a proposed ban on pitbulls, chow chows, akitas, wolf hybrids and rottweilers.
A strong argument against this proposal is that dangerous dogs are created by irresponsible owners, not genetics. I couldn’t agree more. But another problem with this proposal is how it doesn’t address mixed-breed dogs at all. Take, a beagle/rottweiler mix, for example. I guess all mutts are off the hook in this case, even the aggressive ones. Lets ban someone from owning a gentle akita she’s had for eight years with no problems. Then let’s look the other way when her neighbor chains a lab mix in her yard for all its life and it lunges at kids on their way to school.
As for banning certain breeds, it makes no sense to ban pitbulls because a pitbull isn’t even a recognized breed. The term pitbull is a name for similar breeds such as the American pitbull terrier (also called the American Staffordshire terrier) and the Staffordshire bull terrier and dogs mixed with these breeds or dogs with similar traits. I guess that means if I have a lab/bulldog mix, she might be banned in Minnesota for looking sort of like an American pitbull terrier.
Obviously, wolf hybrids are not a breed either. Who really can tell the difference between a wolf/husky mix and a dog that is one-quarter husky, one-quarter German shepherd and half Alaskan malamute? I know I couldn’t.
Dog attacks are a serious problem in our country, but banning certain dog breeds won’t solve the issue. It’s a lot more difficult than that.
No related posts.
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 am
I agree. it isn’t the breeds fault at all. Its the owners who can’t manage them or don’t even try too. Aggressiveness from what i understand is a learned thing
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Breed bans are dumb IMHO. It’s not the dog, it’s more often than not the owner. My wife is a veterinarian and we have a pit bull mix that is a rescue dog. She’s aggressive towards other dogs sometimes, but she’s a sweet dog and we know how to handle the aggressive tendencies. It’s amazing the number of legislators however who believe that if you ban a certain type of dog from your city or county or state that it’s going to solve the dog attack issue. It’s not.
I say ban dumb owners.
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I couldn’t agree more. The anti pet legislation is backed and proposed by the Humane Society of the US. It’s sad that the organization that we expect to take care of animals is actually trying to eliminate them.
CindyS’s last blog post..The Dog Blog Carnival – March 2 Edition
April 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I am all in favour of banning dog breeds. So okay, a pitbull can be a wonderful pet, but to date 4 out of the 5 pitbulls I’ve met have been owned by owners who chose the dog for it’s reputation. It might not be fair to the fifth owner, but I’d rather ban pitbulls than have to live with bad owners having dogs that are bred for fighting. Let the bad owners go out and get labradors instead. There will still be dog bites, but they will be much less frequent and much less severe when they do occur. Sure, ideally they could introduce a mandatory dog-license, with a test and high fees… but who is going to check for the license? If they did that then the bad owners would just keep the dog anyway and nobody would know they had no permits. Sorry, a breed ban is the way to go.
February 15th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Frank, you proved exactly why the ban wouldn’t work with your OWN arguement: “Sure, ideally they could introduce a mandatory dog-license, with a test and high fees… but who is going to check for the license? If they did that then the bad owners would just keep the dog anyway and nobody would know they had no permits.” Exactly, and who is going to go house-to-house checking dog breeds? The answer is stiffer penalties for irresponsible dog owners. The dog is the one who usually gets punished (euthenasia) but the dog owner rarely sees any punitive measures.
As far as your comment “but to date 4 out of the 5 pitbulls I’ve met have been owned by owners who chose the dog for it’s reputation” my question is: what type of people are you hanging out with?. I happen to belong to a group specifically for Staffordshire Terrier owners and we ALL chose our dogs because of their loving, affectionate nature and intelligence, just like their owners
.
The only terrible dog bite/attacks I have witnesses have been by a cocker spaniel (shredded my dad’s arm and he lost 50% use as a result) and by a black lab that nearly took my neighbor’s daughter’s face off. Do you want to know what happened in both cases? Owners were made to pay medical bills that the insurance companies didn’t cover (copays, basically). These two irresponsible pet owners are surely owning “safe” breeds to this day…
February 15th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Good points, Candy. Any breed can attack. Thanks for stopping by.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:42 am
@ Frank:
The history of the “Pit bull” is one that is clouded with idiocy. The dog that most people commonly refer to as pit bulls, is getting a bad rap because of humans own stupidity. Most of the people I know, know everything they learned about “pit bulls” through word of mouth. And we all know how that game worked in school. By the time the message got to the last person it went from: i love cheese to I would like a condom, please.
Dogs that all look alike but different in their own right include: The American Staffordshire Terrier, The Staffordshire Bull Terrier, The American Bulldog, The Dogo Argentino, The Bull Terrier, The Presa Canerio, and of course the only dog with the term pit bull in it’s actual name is The American Pit Bull Terrier.
Why they call it the American Pit Bull Terrier baffles me as it didn’t even originate in America but rather England. Whatever.
Two key facts about The American Pit Bull Terrier, which people rarely take into consideration: 1: It was called the Nanny Dog due to it’s protectiveness of children. Often parents when they wanted to go out would stick a American Pit Bull Terrier in the room with a new born in order for the dog to watch it while the parents were out. 2: The reason Pit Bull is even in their name is because they were re-breed in SPAIN to fight bulls in what else but a pit?
Another thing: The American Pit Bull Terrier does not have a lock jaw. Nor does any other dog breed. They are K9′s just like every other dog. When you say a dog has a lock jaw that’s like saying that a Piranha has lock jaw. Which is nonsense.
In any case, if that law was to be enforced all you would do is cause psychological trauma to people who love and are invested in the dog, and the dog itself. Plus what were they planning on doing? Killing them all? You could compare that to when someone says that because some African Americans sell and use drugs they all do. Which is completely un-true.
If you truly believe that, then why not enforce this code: Because a few people that operate motorized vehicles suck at driving, no one on the face of the planet should be allowed to drive. My logic is not silly, it’s completely fair.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Shy, thank you for the information and for visiting my blog. I hope you are able to influence others and teach people the truth about “pitbulls.” It really does shock me that so many intelligent people believe the American pit bull terrier is dangerous.
April 21st, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Man, I can’t get started on this one…we need to ban irresponsibility…urgh…