Okay... thanks for all being my guinea pigs. I have enough information to compile a decent conclusion - even though we are all incredibly smart people, we all still have differing opinions. I guess there are no issues that are really black or white anyway.
That being said, it wouldn't be fair for me to make you all give your opinion, without giving my own. I had two reasons for posting this - 1. i really, REALLY was testing a theory, and 2. I really needed to vent about this ruling today.
I am NOT in favour of breed bans. It is something I am absolutely extremely passionate about. I don't have many true passions, per se, so this is pretty big for me. I have been fighting this ban since I heard about it last fall. I was devastated by this news today.
I owned a pit bull for awhile. He was the absolute best dog I could have ever asked for. He had a certain joie de vivre that was unmatched in any pet I have ever owned. He loved everyone, and everyone loved him. Responsible pit bull owners know that this is a pit bull's natural temperament.
That aside, I do not believe any animal RAISED for a certain purpose will innately know that purpose without being trained for it. Huskies aren't born knowing how to pull sleds. Horses bred for riding must still be broken. Pit bulls bred to attack or fight must still be trained to do so.
Anyway, thank you again for your responses. You all made very good arguments - better than the ones I am used to from "non-ADD" people. I'm going to go wallow in the knowledge that one voice really can't change the world.
I think we all know now that ADDers think differently than the rest of the general population. Though it is sometimes difficult for us to PROVE it, we often feel much smarter than everybody else, know what I mean?I think pitt bulls as a breed may not be any more viscious than any other breeds, but because they are bred to be muscular with powerful jaws to guard its owners, when they do attack out of a sense of protection of its territory or owner, they do so with a ferocity and power that does more harm than say a less powerful dog who is protecting its terrotory/owner. The dog, by virtue of its breed is physically able to do more harm. I agree with the ruling. I think of it like this: there are snakes and there are snakes. Some snakes are harmelss, some are even dangrous and are kept as pets. But SOME snakes, by virtue of their level of dangerousness, are NOT permitted to be owned by the average citizen. It is the degree of which the animal poses a danger to the public. I do not think it is (just)the owner... (but of couse poor training and abuse of the animal can INCREASE the liklihood of the dog hurting soemone), but we have had similar attacks here in Ohio with one person getting killed. All who knew the dog said it had never hurt anyone or had ever shown signs of aggression....Holding the owner accountable can only do so much...the dog is what it is...and once the dog has hurt someone...well it is just too late then...So I think it IS the dog...and I think it has no place among the general public. Let it be used for the purpose it was bred for...guarding territory! Think of the places we can use its services! It is just out of its element around the general population, and it gets blamed for doing what its little brain tells it to what good little pitt bulls do. Protect at all costs! So I am FOR the law and FOR assisting the pitbulls in finding their place in the canine sun.
I guess I just don't see it as either/or...
I dont think any dog that is bred for fighting or hunting have a place amongst suburbia. I am a little dog in built up areas person and if you want a big dog - go out and live on big land!!!
Healthier for the community and for the dog!
[QUOTE=Haley]I think pitt bulls as a breed may not be any more viscious than any other breeds, but because they are bred to be muscular with powerful jaws to guard its owners, when they do attack out of a sense of protection of its territory or owner, they do so with a ferocity and power that does more harm than say a less powerful dog who is protecting its terrotory/owner. The dog, by virtue of its breed is physically able to do more harm.[/QUOTE]
Another dog with a "bad" reputation is the Rottwhiler, for the reasons Haley stated above. The RV park in which I live has four Rotts, living with four different owners. All four of them are the most mild-tempered animals I've known. They get along with children, each other, and even little mini dogs. It's a shame any of these dogs have developed the reputation they have due to those owners who do train them for dog fighting, protection only, etc.
I do believe it wouldn't be a bad idea for these dogs, and perhaps all larger dogs, when away from their territory, to be muzzled. Why take a chance when it's not necessary. If the owners want the muzzles removed, just keep the dog at home.I agree it's the owners who are responsible for most of these dogs' attacks. They raise them to be attackers. I've met some PitBulls who were gentle. The article states: for the first time allows for jail time of up to six months. I'm assuming they mean the owners, and not the dogs. Muzzles could be a solution, for a lot of dogs, not just pitbulls. But only because there are people who may come in contact with a dog who are really scared of dogs, and I believe the dog, sensing this, may attack.
There have been St. Bernards, the sweetest, gentlest dogs on earth, who have attacked children...even their owner's children.
So who knows, it's a difficult decision.
Personally, I think there should be more places other than England and CA to make declawing a cat illegal, which is amputation at their knuckles, changing their cleaning habits, litter box habits, personality and, of course protection. So there!GypsyWomyn38412.6568518519
While I do feel for those and their families who have been victims of such maulings and attacks on the part of these animals, to ban the breed as a whole I think is going a bit overboard.
I think that maybe, if they were to somehow make it mandatory to have anyone who acquired a pit bull as a pet to put it into some sort of socialization program or training program, and to use other precautionary methods, such as muzzles, then that may help.
then again, there are those idiots and whippersnappers out there that just keep the dog in order to illegally use it in dog fights and stuff. Those idiot doing this make it hard on the breed as a whole, and hard on those who love the breed as a pet.
sonya_h38412.6764236111It's definitly the owners fault because I know tons of friendly pits. It's sad the rep the dogs get from bad owners. They can ban them in Canada but what's going to stop someone from raising another dog like a rotwhiler to be an attack dog. They need ot have STEEPER penalities for those who mistreat animals taylored along the same lines as child abuse just obviously not quite as strict.
In my opinion bulldogs are a self-fulfilling prophecy; I don't think they're significantly more dangerous than other dogs, but many people do. As a result, an asshole trying to get a "dangerous" dog gets a bulldog and beats it until it goes bad. I don't think the root of the problem is the dog, but the humans who choose to mistreat them and shape them into a problem. They should be the ones paying the price, not the dogs. As with any animal aggession the fault is usually with the owner not the animal. Whether it be lack of training or abuse of the animal. I think every person who purchases adopts or in any way aquires an animal should be required to take some kind of ownership training. They should be required to take continuing education with each subsequent pet. You can bet that would diminish the number of irresponsible owners because most of the irresponsible people wouldn't take the training. Without proof of training the animal would be confiscated within a certain amount of time.