Pit Bulls - Breed Bans

[Rebeki]

After reading the thread on breed bans, it seems like pretty much everyone (including myself) is in agreement that they aren't really practical.

I do feel however that in certain areas, like the New York City area that I'm from, there is a definite problem with too many pit bulls. When I went to my local town shelter, I would say that about 75% of the dogs were pit bulls. I feel that pit bulls in particular have an overpopulation problem, probably due to very irresponsible breeding that is going on. Does anyone know of any shelter that has a population of 75% akitas or rottweilers or chows??? Probably not, and it should be the same way for pit bulls, because these breeds are not meant for everyone.

My idea - people should be required to have permits to own these animals, just like a gun. Guns/pit bulls are great in the right persons hands, however, in the wrong hands they can turn deadly.

My point in creating this thread is to create some discussion of what you think should be done about this situation.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Spartanvet4cows]

I was just talking to my dad about something like this today. He's a narcotics officer, and is usually the first one through the door on a raid. He's had a lot of dogs come at him. He refuses to shoot them unless a fire extinguisher won't work. He agrees that pitbulls can be wonderful dogs, but way too many people breed/buy them for the wrong reasons. I think people should be evaluated before owning pets of any sort, but especially dogs like pitbulls, german shepherds, rotties, etc. I think if we used a permit program to limit the ownership of these dogs, fewer drug dealers, dog fighters, and run of the mill criminals would get a hold of them.
My dad says that a lot of cities use breed ban legislation so that they have a charge to pin on drug dealers/other criminals right away while they're working on evidence for their other crimes.

 

[ratbandit]

A permit is a start, but drug dealers etc. need a permit for a "liscence to carry" and they don't seem to have a problem getting weapons. Still, it would bring more legal responsibility to the breeding/keeping of pit bulls. I don't think law enforcement will be chomping at the bit to enforce it though except in convenient situations like Spartanvet mentioned. I've never seen anyone prosecuted for not purchasing a dog liscence...btw are dog liscences required in most areas???

 

[silverelf]

requiring permits for ownership will make pitbull problems go away like prohibition made alcohol go away. none of the fighting dogs are registered or altered or licensed, etc.....having a permit for ownership won't change a single thing. Do you have any idea how easy it is to get a gun without a license? If you live in the right area, a 5 year old could do it.

In theory, its a nice idea, but practically it would never ever work.

 

[kate_g]

My idea - people should be required to have permits to own these animals, just like a gun.

It's been tried - Wilmington, DE has a *huge* dog fighting problem and enacted a pit bull registration program maybe 7 years ago, and I believe they modeled it after a program in some other city that I can't remember right now. It doesn't work. The problem is that responsible owners, whose dogs weren't a problem before the law, end up jumping through a lot of hoops and paying extra fees and whatnot in order to comply. But there's not much you can do in the way of enforcement. The irresponsible owners are probably not licensing their dog or getting it medical care either, so you can't enforce registration through those venues. The fine for an unregistered pit bull can't be very much in comparison with getting caught fighting your dog (or having evidence of training/fighting on your premises), and obviously the dog fighters are already willing to break *that* law...

 

[Bill59]

These are problems that could be solved easily with a nationwide spay/neuter program.




(and I'm not talking about dogs)

 

[sofficat]

hehe.

did you all hear that california is trying to pass a law that ALL pets be spayed/neutered by 4 months (or a vet note can say by 6 m). Breeders have to pay a huge fee for every unaltered animal they have.
(i say woohoo)

 

[kate_g]

He refuses to shoot them unless a fire extinguisher won't work.

Then again, even a bullet doesn't generally stop a determined pit bull... (Got quite a few at the shelter who had survived gunshots to the head, neck, or chest.)

 

[AngiePants]

I've got a pitbull and she's only attacked like 5 or 6 people. In her defense only 4 of them were unprovoked.

 

[JIKJen124]

I've got a pitbull and she's only attacked like 5 or 6 people. In her defense only 4 of them were unprovoked.

Is it me, or does that still sound like 4-6 too many?

 

[ckgilabert]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2148793.stm


I liked what Bill59 said.

I have been a firm believer of spaying and neutering people...but i guess i'd get in trouble cuz people have "rights" or whatever. theres this one shelter that i heard about in riverside (or somewhere near there)...that if the dog or cat was going to be and outside pet...then they wouldnt adopt those pets out to those people. i think that if people decide to get an animal, they should treat it like they're part of the family. my large dog is a mix of rottweiler/german shep/lab/husky...and he's the sweetest thing ever!

 

[GallopRealyFast]

I've got a pitbull and she's only attacked like 5 or 6 people. In her defense only 4 of them were unprovoked.

...only 4?? I think 1 attack is a lot and can give you a nice lawsuit or the "attackee" can have the choice of putting the dog down (at least around here). Be very careful.

On this whole pit bull/chow/rottie issue a dog is a dog they all have teeth and claws and have the ability to seriously injure somebody no matter what breed. I get scared of having my arm taken off by the pirahana poodles more than a lot of the "dangerous" breeds that come into the clinic. I think genetics play a part in how easily dangerous they become, but what makes a dangerous dog is how they are trained. I have seen a lot of mushy pit bulls that play with my rowdy shepard very nicely without a fight. It just so happens the vast majority of pit bulls are bought by the wrong people and you only hear about the bad things instead of the good things. "Oh pit bulls are so gangsta I want a pit bull" and then the tough guy roughs up his dog and there goes a good dog gone bad. But you know how it goes blame the dog not the owner. Stupid gangstas. It's all DMX's fault.

 

[AngiePants]

Well she's used to fighting bears so I guess she must have mistaken a couple of hairy guys for bears and well pitbulls will be pitbulls. If the authorities get involved I might have to hide her out at Mike Vick's house.

 

[runnerDC]

I've got a pitbull and she's only attacked like 5 or 6 people. In her defense only 4 of them were unprovoked

Is it me, or does that still sound like 4-6 too many?

I'd just assumed AngiePants has got a good sense of humor and was joking!

 

[JumptheMoon]

Well she's used to fighting bears so I guess she must have mistaken a couple of hairy guys for bears and well pitbulls will be pitbulls. If the authorities get involved I might have to hide her out at Mike Vick's house.

But that's not safe anymore! Darn those authorities, don't they know that professional athletes are above the law? 😛

 

[Max Power]

The only thing laws like that are good for is taking sweet innocent family dogs away from law abiding cititizens like my parents. Just like gun laws, people who want them for legitimate reasons are restricted while those who want guns to do harm continue to get them illegally as they do now. The result? The same number of bad guys with guns and less protection from them. Prohibition makes problems worse. I don't think we want pit bulls to seem any more gangsta, which will just create more problems

 

[Bill59]

Sterilizing People....has happened

But unlike past instances, with my plan the decision on who gets spayed and neutered would be fair, nondiscriminatory and beneficial to all society.

Because I would decide.

 

[ri23]

I would completely agree with your plan Bill59 if I got a vote in who to sterilize.

 

[Spartanvet4cows]

I think the AVMA should have a human sterilization committee. Since vets are smarter than MD's, and none of us need to be sterilized 😛.

Actually Bill, I've been telling my husband (with him agreeing) that we need a parenthood "test" and if you fail, you're sterilized. The questions were something like:
Do you think it's ok to feed your kid ground up MacDonald's before they have teeth?
Will you know who your "baby daddy" is?
Can you tell your child "No"?
(Credit goes to the Maury Povich for those questions.)

Anyway, now I'm derailing.
I agree that the "reputation" pits have actually contributes to the fact that "gangstas" want to own them. It's very unfortunate, bad people raise bad pets. It's a vicious cycle that needs to be stopped somehow, it's just hard to tell how.

 

[PdxYOSHI]

Bad people raise bad kids and that hasn't stopped yet either. Even with social workers who are overworked and underpaid. I don't see that being much different.

 

[wivet2011]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2148793.stm

I have been a firm believer of spaying and neutering people...but i guess i'd get in trouble cuz people have "rights" or whatever. theres this one shelter that i heard about in riverside (or somewhere near there)...that if the dog or cat was going to be and outside pet...then they wouldnt adopt those pets out to those people. i think that if people decide to get an animal, they should treat it like they're part of the family. my large dog is a mix of rottweiler/german shep/lab/husky...and he's the sweetest thing ever!

I agree that if the animal is used to being indoors, that it should stay indoors, but what about all the feral cats that end up in humane societies and are euthanized because they aren't 'adoptable'? In my area, we have LOTS of farmers that call the humane society looking for spayed/neutered farm cats and they aren't allowed to adopt because the adoptable cats shouldn't be outside and the cats that would have done great on a farm where euthanized! It just doesn't make any sense to me!!

I think Bill's idea is great (I have a friend that has been saying the exact same thing for years). At the very least, an average IQ score should be required for anyone looking to bring a furry friend into their home (obviously there are legit. exceptions, but you know what I mean 😛 )

 

[kate_g]

we have LOTS of farmers that call the humane society looking for spayed/neutered farm cats and they aren't allowed to adopt because the adoptable cats shouldn't be outside and the cats that would have done great on a farm where euthanized!

That's a shame. The shelter I worked at actually kept a small group of otherwise healthy and feline-socialized semiferal cats, just for adoption out to barns and whatnot. They were pretty careful about screening potential adopters to make sure the cats would have enough shelter and actually be cared for despite being "barn cats," though.

And an unrelated point...

At the very least, an average IQ score should be required

A psych prof made this point to me once... Given your likely life history (e.g. went to college) your idea of average intelligence is probably skewed way upward. The average IQ is 100 - that's how the test is designed. But if you actually met someone with a 100 IQ, you would most likely be appalled that a person that dumb was "average." Most of those gangsta types and people you'd rather not own pets probably *do* have above-average IQ...

(I know you weren't seriously proposing IQ as a criterion after a lot of consideration of its merits and applicability or anything... I just think it's funny, after it was pointed out to me that I was making the same mistake, how prone we are to believing that the university-educated population we spend all our time in actually represents an "average" cross-section of humanity...)

 

[wivet2011]

That's a shame. The shelter I worked at actually kept a small group of otherwise healthy and feline-socialized semiferal cats, just for adoption out to barns and whatnot. They were pretty careful about screening potential adopters to make sure the cats would have enough shelter and actually be cared for despite being "barn cats," though.

And an unrelated point...


A psych prof made this point to me once... Given your likely life history (e.g. went to college) your idea of average intelligence is probably skewed way upward. The average IQ is 100 - that's how the test is designed. But if you actually met someone with a 100 IQ, you would most likely be appalled that a person that dumb was "average." Most of those gangsta types and people you'd rather not own pets probably *do* have above-average IQ...

(I know you weren't seriously proposing IQ as a criterion after a lot of consideration of its merits and applicability or anything... I just think it's funny, after it was pointed out to me that I was making the same mistake, how prone we are to believing that the university-educated population we spend all our time in actually represents an "average" cross-section of humanity...)

Yeah, if the IQ criterion was feasible, then I would be serious, but like you said, so many people that shouldn't have pets are considered average. Sad but true isn't it... At least the local humane society here used to do background checks (to make sure you didn't have a history of violence, etc) to eliminate most of the bad seeds. They have since eliminated that policy, what a shame 🙁

 

[kate_g]

At least the local humane society here used to do background checks (to make sure you didn't have a history of violence, etc) to eliminate most of the bad seeds.

Wow... I guess that might get expensive, if your police dept. charges for it. We didn't do background checks as a routine, but we did require potential adopters to provide references, several months of pay stubs or on-time paid utility bills, and their deed *or* a letter from their landlord specifying that the type of pet they were adopting was allowed. For dogs, they also had to bring in any other dogs they had for a supervised meeting to make sure everyone got along. And ultimately, if the adoption staff just weren't comfortable with a potential adopter, they denied the application. BUT... This was a "no kill" shelter. In a place where every animal has an expiration date, I could see thinking it's better to adopt an animal to a questionable owner than kill it.

 

[wivet2011]

Yeah, our humane society also required all the same documentation (until they did away with that too) and I'm pretty sure the humane society was never charged for background checks (I think there was a database they were able to check online), and they did it regardless of who was adopting (even volunteers which I always thought was weird). They decided to discontinue all of it because it "took to much time" and they said it didn't make any difference. And while I would love to believe that as a 'kill' shelter, they wanted to find homes for the animals ASAP to avoid having to euthanize them, their actions of late have proven that they have other motives behind their "any idiot walking in off the street can adopt an animal" policy. I'm just not so sure that they are still there to really help the animals which is a shame.

Okay, enough of my venting!

 

[ShelterGirl]

Sounds like there are some seriously burned out folks at your shelter, WIVet. That's a shame - hopefully they will leave or have an attitude adjustment.

The shelter I work at mandates training deposits for people who adopt pits or pit mixes (rationale: make adopted pits good ambassadors in the community by ensuring they are better behaved than the "average" dog). Depending on the dog, they may also have stipulations around age of kids, other pets allowed in the home, etc.

 

[wivet2011]

Sounds like there are some seriously burned out folks at your shelter, WIVet. That's a shame - hopefully they will leave or have an attitude adjustment.

The shelter I work at mandates training deposits for people who adopt pits or pit mixes (rationale: make adopted pits good ambassadors in the community by ensuring they are better behaved than the "average" dog). Depending on the dog, they may also have stipulations around age of kids, other pets allowed in the home, etc.

Unfortunately, it's all the people that really care about the animals that are leaving. If only a certain few management type people would leave, life would be a lot better!

I've heard about spay/neuter deposits and the placement requirements (age of kids, etc), but never training deposits for certain breeds. That is a GREAT idea. I'm sure it's not fool proof, but it's way better than nothing at all!