Breed bans

[StealthDog]

---

Members don't see this ad.

A representative in Minnesota just announced that he's going to introduce legislation to make it illegal to own five breeds of dogs (wolf hybrids, akitas, chow chows, Rottweilers, and pit bulls), or any dog that's a mix containing any of those breeds. I have never been a fan of breed bans, but also never thought we'd be dealing with them in Minnesota. I'm pretty incensed about it for a few reasons:

-why those five breeds? Seems incredibly arbitrary to me. Plus, who gets to decide when a dog is a mixed breed that contains one of those five? Often this job gets pushed onto vets, which I think is pretty unfair. I've had one vet tell me that he just calls all mixed-breed dogs "lab mixes" to avoid having his patients become burdens for finding apartments that will accept them or homeowners insurance policies that will cover them ("And besides, 99% of the time they ARE lab mixes.")
-breed bans have never been shown to have an effect on bite statistics
-you turn dogs into "dangerous breeds" and "not dangerous breeds", giving the illusion that any "not dangerous breed" will not bite... and I dunno about you, but I've been more threatened by most chihuahuas that I've met than most Rottweilers
-you euth hundreds of perfectly well-adjusted animals to prevent bites that a very small minority might have inflicted... a terrible cost, I think. Just as many kids are killed in school buses per year as are killed in dog attacks, but we aren't banning buses. More kids die drowning in buckets, but we still have lots of buckets around. Lord knows how many kids die in car accidents every year. The world is full of risky things. Why ban one but ignore all the others?

I think dangerous dogs should be dealt with individually. Yeah, a dangerous Chow Chow should be euthanized, but so should a dangerous Golden retriever or rat terrier or collie. If we want to get rid of any dog that could potentially kill a human or animal, we would need to get rid of the entire species. After all, a Pomeranian killed a 6 week old baby in 2000...

Opinions?

 

[dyachei]

A representative in Minnesota just announced that he's going to introduce legislation to make it illegal to own five breeds of dogs (wolf hybrids, akitas, chow chows, Rottweilers, and pit bulls), or any dog that's a mix containing any of those breeds. I have never been a fan of breed bans, but also never thought we'd be dealing with them in Minnesota. I'm pretty incensed about it for a few reasons:

-why those five breeds? Seems incredibly arbitrary to me. Plus, who gets to decide when a dog is a mixed breed that contains one of those five? Often this job gets pushed onto vets, which I think is pretty unfair. I've had one vet tell me that he just calls all mixed-breed dogs "lab mixes" to avoid having his patients become burdens for finding apartments that will accept them or homeowners insurance policies that will cover them ("And besides, 99% of the time they ARE lab mixes.")
-breed bans have never been shown to have an effect on bite statistics
-you turn dogs into "dangerous breeds" and "not dangerous breeds", giving the illusion that any "not dangerous breed" will not bite... and I dunno about you, but I've been more threatened by most chihuahuas that I've met than most Rottweilers
-you euth hundreds of perfectly well-adjusted animals to prevent bites that a very small minority might have inflicted... a terrible cost, I think. Just as many kids are killed in school buses per year as are killed in dog attacks, but we aren't banning buses. More kids die drowning in buckets, but we still have lots of buckets around. Lord knows how many kids die in car accidents every year. The world is full of risky things. Why ban one but ignore all the others?

I think dangerous dogs should be dealt with individually. Yeah, a dangerous Chow Chow should be euthanized, but so should a dangerous Golden retriever or rat terrier or collie. If we want to get rid of any dog that could potentially kill a human or animal, we would need to get rid of the entire species. After all, a Pomeranian killed a 6 week old baby in 2000...

Opinions?

This is not my opinion, but why I think they think those breeds should be banned. Those dogs have the reputation of being vicious/violent. And certain breeds do have aggressive tendencies that other breeds don't.

My personal opinion is that it depends on the raising of each individual dog. If you treat and animal like its an attack dog, then it will be an attack dog. And I agree, I've been threatened more by toy poodles and chihuahuas than any other dog, including rottweilers, pit bulls, and wolf mixes. But I think the biggest problem is that it is unenforceable unless the dog is purebred. And even then, there are people moving in and out of the state with those breeds of dogs. Who's to say that because they move to Minnesota, they have to get rid of their dog?

 

[Spartanvet4cows]

One of my classmates used this topic for his Legislative Lobbying assignment for our veterinary ethics class. He owns a pitbull that is just the sweetest thing. He is very against breed banning, and so am I. It doesn't reduce the number of bites/attacks, and it just increases paperwork/cost to the city. Pitbulls are not human aggressive dogs, they are high energy, and if they're aggressive toward anything it's usually other dogs. They've shown that dogs used for fighting are usually fine with humans, it's other dogs that are the problem. They're euthanized anyway because they do pose a threat to others' pets and possibly children which I agree with. These dogs have a violent past, best to put them out of their misery.
I am also of the mind that aggressive dogs should be taken individually, not on a breed basis. I've never been threatened by a pitbull, but dang, those chihuahuas!
The only "breed" legislation that might make sense is that with wolf hybrids. I'm quite sure they're illegal here in Michigan, and breeding directly with wolves leaves a little too much "wild" attitude for my taste. It makes things difficult on veterinarians because the vaccines used for dogs are not approved for wolves or hybrids. I'm pretty sure the MLV rabies vaccine has actually been shown to cause rabies in these animals (if I am remembering correctly, I may not be). One of the people in my neighborhood had a wolf hybrid that was constantly kept outside and I'm not sure I would trust it.
Anyway, that's just my opinion on things.

 

[Normed]

I have a pitbull, and I also live in Ontario, where we have a provincial wide Pitbull ban. (my dog is grandfathered, because I had him before the ban went through -- he just has to be muzzled and on a leash in public).
I'm definitely not a fan of breed-specific bans by anymeans...

In Ontario, the ban was implemented for pitbulls and any dog with any sort of pit mix in it. It is an entirely political ban -- Humane Societies and SPCA are not supportive, nor are any vets or techs who i have talked to. I just have a problem knowing that such a ban was put in place against the advice of the Vets - the professionals. What the eff do politicians know about dogs? haha CLEARLY this is a heated topic with me and I could go on all day.

Anyway, most recently, the ban has been lifted from pit-mixes to only pitbulls. So, that's a step in the right direction. I believe that one day the whole ban will be lifted, but that's an entirely different and long conversation. It's frustrating to see bans go through, because breeds are often fads. From Dobermans, to Rotties, to Shepherds, Pitbulls... guess what. Now that Pits are banned, there'll be a new fad.

haha... that's my 2 cents... 🙂

 

[silverelf]

if that ban goes through, every animal that enters the shelter will be euthanized....because every single one is a mix of at least one of those breeds.

 

[critterfixer]

It's incredibly stupid. Just 20 years ago, Dobermans were the "dangerous" breed.

One of my dogs is a chow/lab mix. He's just as much labrador as chow chow. I just tell people he's a lab cross. But he looks like a huge Shiba Inu, so it's not hard to guess his parentage. My terriers are far more likely to bite someone.

We still have people believing that any dog with black on its tongue is a chow cross. Should all dogs with spotted tongues be euthanized?

Breed bans are a lazy way to avoid taking responsibility for dog ownership and training. If they want to get all legal about it, then make dog ownership itself something that requires training and licensing of the owner.

It makes me crazy, so I'll stop here.

 

[Jejton]

This is not my opinion, but why I think they think those breeds should be banned. Those dogs have the reputation of being vicious/violent. And certain breeds do have aggressive tendencies that other breeds don't.

You kind of contradict yourself here. I think the answer is somewhat in the middle. Certain breeds have tendencies that lie one way or another, but you can raise a dog in such a way that enforces or plays down that tendency. But when it comes down to it, different breeds have different genetics and therefore different behavior patters, otherwise what would make each breed unique besides its looks? Collies and shepherds were bred over thousands of years to herd, rottweilers to protect, pitbulls to fight ( other dogs, not humans ), poodles to hunt waterfowl, etc.

My personal opinion is that it depends on the raising of each individual dog. If you treat and animal like its an attack dog, then it will be an attack dog. And I agree, I've been threatened more by toy poodles and chihuahuas than any other dog, including rottweilers, pit bulls, and wolf mixes. But I think the biggest problem is that it is unenforceable unless the dog is purebred. And even then, there are people moving in and out of the state with those breeds of dogs. Who's to say that because they move to Minnesota, they have to get rid of their dog?

I dont personally agree with a ban because of reasons in this and above post - they just dont work because any breed has the potential to inflict serious injury and pretty much every breed has done so. A lot of it comes down to the statistics - x % of y% breed compounded by the type of person most likley to own y% breed. What should be promoted is owner responsibility. Owners should have to undergo some sort of licensing just like for any other potentially dangerous weapons - guns, cars, etc - and owner accountability. Ban the deed, not the breed, right? As for your last point, well states already do regulate what you can bring in and out of their state - notably firearms but there are other examples such as fireworks, certain livestocks, plants, etc.

 

[runnerDC]

A representative in Minnesota just announced that he's going to introduce legislation to make it illegal to own five breeds of dogs (wolf hybrids, akitas, chow chows, Rottweilers, and pit bulls), or any dog that's a mix containing any of those breeds.

I wonder how the representative is proposing to prove the genetic make-up of any dog in question. Genetic testing? Opinion of a professional (vet)?

In terms of actually addressing a problem from its source, this plan ranks right up there with the $100 "gas rebate check" some senator wanted to mail to every voter last year to "ease the burden of high gas prices". Oh, my, the people we elect to office.

 

[Normed]

I wonder how the representative is proposing to prove the genetic make-up of any dog in question. Genetic testing? Opinion of a professional (vet)?

In terms of actually addressing a problem from its source, this plan ranks right up there with the $100 "gas rebate check" some senator wanted to mail to every voter last year to "ease the burden of high gas prices". Oh, my, the people we elect to office.

These are exactly the problems we are seeing in Ontario. Everything works through word of mouth. You have to be reported as having your dog unmuzzled or off leash in public. Neither the police nor the SPCA, animals shelters, vet clinics, ect are enforcing the ban. And exactly -- I have had people think my dog was a boxer or something just as far off. Many people have no idea what these breeds even look like..
Irresponsible politics. I bet the number of dog bites and maulings doesn't decrease as expected....

 

[KittenKiller]

Im down with the chow chow ban. I hate the buggers. Two of them snarl and try to claw their way through their rickety fence when I pass their house on my daily run. The other breeds are fine in my book 😉

<hides from the chow chow fans>

 

[mistifical]

Im down with the chow chow ban. I hate the buggers. Two of them snarl and try to claw their way through their rickety fence when I pass their house on my daily run. The other breeds are fine in my book 😉

<hides from the chow chow fans>

We had a surprisingly nice chow at work yesterday. No need to muzzle her at all to do anything... xrays, blood, urine, etc. She was soooo cooperative. Also, the only chow that I can recall not needing to muzzle.

Most of the rotties that come into my clinic are mean. I can remember a 6 month old puppy and asking if i could pet her, the owner said she was nice, i put my hand out, palm up, was going to let her sniff me, and she lunged. I think thats just the type of people that tend to own rotties in my area though, I don't general think less of the breed, but I am a bit hesitant when they come into my clinic based on past experience. And it seems that those rottie owners don't like to tell us that their dog needs a muzzle... while most owners say it first thing (and oh, how i do love that).

But yeah, breed bans aren't going to solve anything. I have 2 pits and I hate that I have to be treated differently than most other pet owners. My neighbors hate that I have pits, and one of them, who has since moved away, even called animal control hoping my dogs would get taken away.

Also... very interesting "quiz"
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Findthebull/findpitbull_v3.html
For my stat class we had to do our own "study" and do an analysis on it. I asked people if they were in favor of BSL or not, then had them do the quiz and tell me how many tries it took to get the pit bull. People who were for it had a lot more trouble finding the pit.

 

[Max Power]

I did a whole report on this (of course I have a pitbull). They don't even work to reduce bites/attacks, which is why they usually get repealed. The stats are VERY misleading (don't take into account population of certain breeds, just attacks). A pit bull type dogs (which can be 20+ breeds) is counted as one group. Naturally it's going to look like "pit bulls" (not even a recognized breed) attack more people than say a golden retriever. Also, douchebags that want to look tough are attracted to these types of dogs and will cause them to be viscous (which doesn't even work most the time with pits b/c they're not known to be people aggresive). Also, as a dog breed gets popular (as some of these types have) more attacks occur. This has been seen with dalmations and other breeds. It's just idiotic. A lot of the times the dog in the news is called a pit bull just because it attacked someone (a lot of times it's a lab or some other breed). Most people don't even know what they look like. No one ever confirms the breed anyway, it's just witness accounts or whatnot. People are just ignorant. Let's ban certain minorities that commit more crime...same thing.

 

[Max Power]

as a whole more people die in accidents/attacks if you will with cattle than all dogs total...by that same token they should be banned ( I hate cows, but they are delicious lol)

 

[kate_g]

I'll sum up:

1. Pit bulls are the best dogs ever.

2. Breed bans are stupid.

😀

(Why aren't German Shepherds on that list? There's a reason they are by far the guard dog/police dog of choice...)

 

[Serendipity4]

First of all, I am definitely against breed banning. For one, I think the stats (as stats so often are) are messed up. E.g. From my experience, there are two types of people who tend to get breeds such as rotties, pit bulls, etc.: the people who know dogs and like the breed and the people who want a "big scary dog." Unfortunately, since the latter group make up a decent percentage, I think what all too often happens is they (as people) have the type of personalities that tend to allow dogs to grow up and bite people. Therefore it's that this type of people disproportionately chooses these breeds that perhaps causes the stats to suggest rotties, pits, etc. "have tendencies to bite." If only the people who knew something about dogs and are breed enthusiasts adopted these breeds, I think the stats would say something far different.

That said, I do think that some breeds are more difficult to handle than others. For example, I think Akitas tend to more readily accept a dominant position in the household than some other breeds, and therefore need a more experienced owner. (As I tend to SUCK at taking on the "dominant role" in my household, I realize I should not have an Akita; some of my friends, however, could make an excellent pair with the breed). Consequently, while I do not think there should be breed banning, I DO think shelters, etc. can be (and are) sensitive to these breed "tendencies" and therefore should be careful in who they adopt these dogs out to. This may result in it being more difficult to adopt a chow, or a rottie, or a pit, etc. than a shih tzu, but I think I'm okay with that.

(As a side note, and yes, this is stereotyping, but I think the same statistics thing could be used for chihuahuas -- a breed, I agree, I have had far more experience with as "biting dogs." While some owners of rotties, pits etc. want the "big scary dog," some chihuahua owners want the "adorable, carry in my purse, fashionable dog" who they can spoil to no end. And what happens when you give Fluffy everything Fluffy wants, including his own personal Gucci carrying case? Sometimes Fluffy thinks it's okay to let the vet (who doesn't seem to understand the "Fluffy gets everything he wants" mentality) know with a bite that Fluffy does NOT want to be examined 🙂)

 

[Max Power]

I can't speak for all these breeds..but it irks me when it's implied (even on the anti-ban side) that these pits need special training (via responsible owners) to be nice. It's so blatantly wrong. Mine was 6 mos old with NO training whatsoever, so despite the potty accidents, jumping, licking, and play biting, she never so much as even growled or shown her teeth. My nephew beats the crap out of her with his toys and she just lays there and licks his face (we have to really discipline my nephew on this b/c his lab mixes will NOT tolerate stuff like that). This is their natural temperament. Any owner can tell you that. That's why they get abandoned so often, when thugs like that realize that no matter what they do they can't make their pit mean.

 

[Serendipity4]

I can't speak for all these breeds..but it irks me when it's implied (even on the anti-ban side) that these pits need special training (via responsible owners) to be nice. It's so blatantly wrong. Mine was 6 mos old with NO training whatsoever, so despite the potty accidents, jumping, licking, and play biting, she never so much as even growled or shown her teeth. My nephew beats the crap out of her with his toys and she just lays there and licks his face (we have to really discipline my nephew on this b/c his lab mixes will NOT tolerate stuff like that). This is their natural temperament. Any owner can tell you that. That's why they get abandoned so often, when thugs like that realize that no matter what they do they can't make their pit mean.

I'm sorry if it seemed as if I was saying if, for example, pit bulls, do not have a responsible owner they will turn out mean. I meant more to suggest that I think the type of owner who wants to make a dog mean or make a dog look ferocious (even if they don't intend to have the dog bite) disproportionately leans towards breeds such as pits, and thus there are a disproportionate number of bites reported from these type breeds. Although I do think that some breeds (e.g. Akita) tend to be more dominant and therefore need a more experienced handler (and you could certainly say the same for the high energy breeds, such as the Border Collie), I in no way intended to imply that these breeds have a higher propensity towards biting.

 

[philomycus]

The absolute nastiest dog at my clinic is a Chiuaua mix. the dog has to be muzzled by the owner just so we can sedate it even to do a nail trim.

my sis has a rescued pit bull that's extremely sweet and she lets the cats play with her.

there shouldn't be a breed ban, there should be a stupid people ban on owning breeds more challenging to handle.

 

[Max Power]

I'm sorry if it seemed as if I was saying if, for example, pit bulls, do not have a responsible owner they will turn out mean. I meant more to suggest that I think the type of owner who wants to make a dog mean or make a dog look ferocious (even if they don't intend to have the dog bite) disproportionately leans towards breeds such as pits, and thus there are a disproportionate number of bites reported from these type breeds. Although I do think that some breeds (e.g. Akita) tend to be more dominant and therefore need a more experienced handler (and you could certainly say the same for the high energy breeds, such as the Border Collie), I in no way intended to imply that these breeds have a higher propensity towards biting.

Oh no I wasn't talking about you!! I just encountered that alot when I did my report. Plus I wrote a letter to the newspaper, and the people that commented back in support said something along those lines. 😍

 

[Keygirl1]

these breed bans are ridiculous. at the clinic where i worked chihuahuas were muzzled the most, by far, of any breed we saw. i have a shepherd/chow chow mix. she is the sweetest most gentle dog i've ever met - to everyone- babies, strangers, other dogs, etc. this legislation should deal with the owners who purposely train their dogs to be aggressive, no matter what breed...

 

[Max Power]

i wish you all could see my pit on my lap now as I type this lol....😍

 

[Serendipity4]

Oh no I wasn't talking about you!! I just encountered that alot when I did my report. Plus I wrote a letter to the newspaper, and the people that commented back in support said something along those lines. 😍

Yay! I feel better now! 🙂

 

[kate_g]

Just to spur further discussion, since everyone seems to be on the same side of the argument for once... 😀

I agree that small dogs are by far nastier and more prone to bite than large ones. And of course a chihuahua bite can break skin and require some serious first aid. But they're unlikely to break bones.

On the other hand, I know a surprising number of people who as children pissed off a German shepherd, got their face swallowed, required stitches and in one case a skin graft, and now have nasty facial scars. And although pit bulls are naturally sweet-tempered, it is simply true that they were originally bred for bull-baiting and therefore have extremely powerful jaws and a tendency to *not* let go once they get hold of something. Pit bull attacks on humans may be rare, but tend to be nasty when they occur (not just skin but chunks of meat missing).

So while I understand the "but chihuahuas are way nastier than pit bulls!" reaction from many of us, is that really the right criterion? Or should defining a "dangerous breed" take into account not only the propensity to bite but also the severity of damage if and when a bite occurs..?

 

[bakaduin]

I personally have a Presa Canario and while hes very loving to the family he is also a very good guard dog and I have to take precautions with him. That being said am I the only one who finds Maltese' to be extremely vicious at my work? Got quite a few ones that need muzzles.

 

[Spartanvet4cows]

Kate,
While I see your point, I've also seen a purebred lab send a kid to the hospital just for standing near it. He didn't do anything to provoke it (I was right there, really scary). I would rather see legislation requiring responsible pet owners than banning potentially dangerous animals. Breed bans certainly wouldn't cover labs because they are some of the most well loved dogs in the world. If treated improperly, they can also turn violent. The general trend these days is to shift responsibility away from where it belongs, and that certainly needs to stop. Just MHO.

 

[wildfocus]

(opening umbrella to block all the incoming tomatoes headed my way)

i'm totally against breed bans, but i just can't deny that certain breeds have a propensity towards agression. we have pit patients who are fantastic, but many more who i wouldn't trust as far as i can throw. and it's not always the owners' faults. and chows - no matter how great the owner - you've gotta be careful. maybe its the whole dogs smell fear thing, but i am extra cautious with these patients, and so are all the other techs and the docs too! would i ever ban the breeds - of course not! but i will take necessary precautions. (and as for the meanest dirtiest dog i've ever known - a chihuahua belonging to my aunt's mother. oh, that thing was a b****!)

incidentally - it was a pit that lunged at our clinic cat as the back door opened, killing our little Barney with his jaws (rip little man - we miss you).

 

[MoMo1224]

Im down with the chow chow ban. I hate the buggers. Two of them snarl and try to claw their way through their rickety fence when I pass their house on my daily run. The other breeds are fine in my book 😉

<hides from the chow chow fans>
-KittenKiller



SAD!!! I have a chow chow and she is the most precious and darling dog ever! I feel so bad because people are always scared of her when they first see her and she gives me this look, like "Mommy, why don't they like me?!"
BAN THE DEED, NOT THE BREED!!!!

 

[ckgilabert]

i dont have much animal experience or veterinary experience, but i've only been bitten TWICE. once by a toy poodle and the other was by a chihuahua mix! all the rotts that i have met have been SWEET.

and about pit bulls...the few that i have encountered have acted like puppies, the ones that like to jump and lick....so i dont like them THAT much. lol

 

[StealthDog]

Or should defining a "dangerous breed" take into account not only the propensity to bite but also the severity of damage if and when a bite occurs..?

I do see your point here, but I also don't think that defining a nice pitbull as a "dangerous dog" will do anyone any good. A dangerous dog is a dog that bites unprovoked, not a dog with a wide head and muscular shoulders. I personally think that biting Pomeranians should be treating just as harshly as biting rotties because, depending on the size of the victim, both can do some serious damage.

Dog bites have actually been down in recent years, but the news media has recently decided that dog bite stories are sexy, and even sexier when "pit bull" is in the headline. I know dog bites are scary things, but I really don't think the problem is big enough to warrant a law that will take thousands of happy dogs out of happy homes in an effort to catch those one or two that will attack/kill a human. Like Max Power said, people are killed by livestock all the time, but there is no one out there trying to ban Arabians or Black Angus... It's much easier to vilify "guard dogs" than horses, and if it sells papers, the media will do it.

 

[Emio]

Let's ban certain minorities that commit more crime...same thing.

i'm game!!! start at the border!! 🙄

(Why aren't German Shepherds on that list? There's a reason they are by far the guard dog/police dog of choice...)

read my mind kate! i know a huge black dutch shepherd/malinois cross in serious Shutzhund (sp?) training... scare the pants off of anyone who so much as looks at him, let alone walks up to his truck while he's in it. sweet dog though, so long as you're not raising an arm to his owner. while we're at it, ban germans, malinois, and turverens.

and no, i don't think there's as much weight in the severity of the bite as teh temperment of the dog. i'm literally afraid of near all toy breeds, but i'll roll around with that black dutch shepherd any day. so long as the owner's nearby to yell at him in german if needbe, lol. a well trained animal is not dangerous. but that may be just me.

p.s. i'm tempted to buy a wolf cross, pit, akita, a rotty, a doberman, a german shepherd, and a turveren (maybe a borzoi too, just for special effects?), train them all up real well, run a day care so that it's obvious they're safe with children, and then watch when animal control just *tries* to take them away. or the cops *try* to arrest me. muahahaha!! i hope that made sense, cause it's a fantastically diabolical plan in my mind.

 

[jfitzpatri8]

I was a dog trainer in my former life, and ended up with an aggressive GSD that I had to put down when I found out I was preggo. I raised him from 6 wks- his troubles were genetic and fear-based.

I now have a Bouvier des Flandres/ Rottweiler cross. The SWEETEST dog. On walks, with toddlers (my niece once had her entire arm in his mouth to get a toy), public places, in our home... so long as I am comfortable. Once I get fearful, he goes into protector mode- hackles, ears up, growly-face, the works. When I say "leave it" the whole show comes down instantly. But, once a neighbor decided to enter our garage without invitation and got chased out by Lui- and he called the SPCA. What an a-hole!

Lui's parents are both pure-bred dogs, with excessively high drives. Neither one could be left alone with company- they had decided that company was fine, so long as mom was in the room. When she left, they "guarded" the guest until she returned. Very thoughtful.

Anyhow, I am with you all. Breed bans are stupid. Ownership should be regulated. period. I'd also like to enact a similar ban on human procreation. But, that's for another day.

J

 

[CookieBear]

There's a breed ban being proposed as law in Manhattan, Kansas currently.

http://www.themercury.com/view/Foru...369cdb004092e&sectionId=_Global/Reader Forums

 

[laurafinn]

Malcolm Gladwell, the guy who wrote The Tipping Point, wrote a New Yorker article about breed bans last year:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060206fa_fact

A lot of the info has been discussed already in this thread, but it's nice to see it in a major publication.