Ban Fighting Breed Dogs

[JLives]

I posted this in another thread awhile ago and I will share it here too. Breed specific laws don't work, many areas are repealing them because they are costly and don't give results. It scapegoats the dogs and takes responsibility off of the owner. There are far more effective measures to reduce dog attacks. I will also add far stricter containment laws as it seems this is how the majority of attacks can be avoided in the first place.

This is what I believe we should do:

* Mandatory spay/nueter for all dogs with exemptions for show/working dog or health concerns (heart murmers etc.)
* Ban advertising of animals from any source but a registered breeder or rescue agency/SPCA
* Stiff penalties and mandatory training classes for not confining animals and attacks on other animals, minor bites to humans
* Jail time if attack results in death/serious injury to humans
* An education campaign in elementary school teaching dog safety (don't pet dogs tied up, don't put your face in a dog's face, don't pet dogs in the back of trucks etc.)

I believe a combination of these things would naturally bring down bite/attack rates without the need for the uselessness of breed specific legislation. Calgary's model is one to look up to.

[hobbyguy]

The circular argument about fighting breeds that goes to bad owners ignores some basic facts:

1. Fighting breeds are bred to be aggressive. Especially toward other dogs.
2. Fighting breeds, especially pit bulls, do not fight or bite the same way most dogs do. Once they "go off", serious injury or death is likely to occur to the person or pet they "go off" on.
3. The statistical arguments made by those such as the ASPCA equate a bite from a dachshund or Jack Russell to the bite of a pit bull. Gimme a break!
4. The courts in Maryland recently ruled that pit bulls are "inherently dangerous". Of course the ASPCA et al rose to their defense, ignoring the facts 1 & 2, and using fact 3 - and going about if bred properly, socialized properly, trained properly blah blah blah in a big circle.

It gets down to this kind of thing: I happen to have been trained and certified in the safe use of explosives. Does that mean that I, or others, should be allowed to have explosives in public? Nope. Would I use explosives made in somebody's back yard? Nope. Properly manufactured, properly used, properly stored, properly controlled explosives are perfectly safe. But yes, explosives are inherently dangerous, and are needed for many legitimate purposes (like road building etc.). Explosives are perfectly innocent until something sets them off. But when they do "go off", the results can be catastrophic - thus the inherent danger.

It is clearly demonstrable that when fighting breed dogs "go off" the results can be catastrophic. Lots of reasons they can "go off", just like there are lots of reasons that explosives can "go off". Those reasons do not negate the "inherent dangerousness".

It is that inherent dangerousness that requires special special legislation/regulation to control fighting breeds.