Why do we still keep dogs bred to kill?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

...snip...

ETA: It's worth noting that the proposed ban isn't going to mass cull existing dogs. It's going to ban further breeding of them and require owners take reasonable precautions with them, most of which they should already be doing voluntarily.

We've learnt in the UK banning on so called breed definition (which ended up in practice being "I know a pitbull when I see one") did not reduce the number of dog attacks, nor the severity of the attacks.

It is almost as if it isn't the dogs that are the problem.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Darat

We've learnt in the UK banning on so called breed definition (which ended up in practice being "I know a pitbull when I see one") did not reduce the number of dog attacks, nor the severity of the attacks.

It is almost as if it isn't the dogs that are the problem.

Could be.

Equally plausible is that their largely reactive, rather than comprehensive, approach to dog attacks means that they are always a day late and dollar short.

Going after this problem one breed every decade or so does seem an approach doomed to failure.

These bans do seem inadequate on their own as proposed, but I don't see how that proves that they would not be an important part of more effective responses.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Oh I think I'll take door number three, Monty:

Be smart enough to realize that the Pit was deliberately bred from the cute little Terrier, and banning will simply prompt a new big bad breed to get bred.

Seriously man, this isn't that ******* complicated. What you are ultimately arguing is for a ban in all dogs over "x" amount of pounds. Everything preceeding that is just bobbing and weaving.

Given we have learnt that banning a "breed" doesn't reduce the number of attacks all we can do is look to reduce the severity of those attacks which does mean we should be looking at restricting dogs to something no larger than a cocker's size (unless we want to ban all dogs).

Whilst I personally would regret that - all my dogs have been larger than that it may be the correct course to take - it would mean we could maintain dog ownership and reduce the severity of the attacks.

It boils down to what society is willing to tolerate regarding dog attacks versus what restrictions on dog ownership we will tolerate. ETA: The kneejerk reaction by our current government is nothing more than political theatre not a serious attempt to reduce dog attacks and deaths.

[TomB]

Looking forward to the episode where Shaggy has to have Scooby put down because he can't find housing due to laws banning large dogs.

I can see different licensing requirements for dogs over a certain size. Similar to the difference in license fees for neuter/spay. (It costs about twice as much to license an intact dog.) But maybe have fencing requirements or something as well as additional fees.

There is/was a reality show about a pit bull rescue shelter (Pit bulls and Parolees). The "parolees" part does not come from the dog owners, it comes from the shelter owner making a point to hire parolees to work at the shelter to give them a second chance and rehabilitate. Before they will let a dog be adopted, they do house visits to make sure there is adequate space and fencing (among other things).

If pitties are banned, then the people who want aggressive dogs will get German Shepards instead. (The dog that I actually have a bit of a phobia about due to encountering a lot of aggressive ones as a kid.) Then you ban Shepards, and Labradors will be used. (I've known some aggressive labs.) Hell, I had friend whose cocker spaniel had aggression issues.

There are a lot of pit bulls in my neighborhood. Mostly, they seem to be owned my middle class to upper middle class families, and they seem to be well behaved. My neighbor (a therapist) just adopted one. I can guarantee he wasn't looking for a scary dog.

While it may be true that the typical dog owned by criminal types may be a pit bull, I don't think the typical pit bull owner is a criminal type.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by TomB

Looking forward to the episode where Shaggy has to have Scooby put down because he can't find housing due to laws banning large dogs.

I can see different licensing requirements for dogs over a certain size. Similar to the difference in license fees for neuter/spay. (It costs about twice as much to license an intact dog.) But maybe have fencing requirements or something as well as additional fees.

There is/was a reality show about a pit bull rescue shelter (Pit bulls and Parolees). The "parolees" part does not come from the dog owners, it comes from the shelter owner making a point to hire parolees to work at the shelter to give them a second chance and rehabilitate. Before they will let a dog be adopted, they do house visits to make sure there is adequate space and fencing (among other things).

If pitties are banned, then the people who want aggressive dogs will get German Shepards instead. (The dog that I actually have a bit of a phobia about due to encountering a lot of aggressive ones as a kid.) Then you ban Shepards, and Labradors will be used. (I've known some aggressive labs.) Hell, I had friend whose cocker spaniel had aggression issues.

There are a lot of pit bulls in my neighborhood. Mostly, they seem to be owned my middle class to upper middle class families, and they seem to be well behaved. My neighbor (a therapist) just adopted one. I can guarantee he wasn't looking for a scary dog.

While it may be true that the typical dog owned by criminal types may be a pit bull, I don't think the typical pit bull owner is a criminal type.

I wouldn't conflate "irresponsible owner" to "criminal type". A criminal specifically seeking out a dangerous breed dog is certainly a bad scenario, but that's not the only scenario to be worried about.

Owning a large breed dog is a huge responsibility, and it's not just criminals who are falling short of that. Plenty of well-meaning, non criminal types are very irresponsible with their dogs and it leads to tragedy all the time.

ETA: Something we have to contend with is that the average dog owner, while not malicious, is often quite careless.

[pipelineaudio]

Originally Posted by Darat

We've learnt in the UK banning on so called breed definition (which ended up in practice being "I know a pitbull when I see one") did not reduce the number of dog attacks, nor the severity of the attacks.

It is almost as if it isn't the dogs that are the problem.

Unless it was other than a dog that attacked then yeah, the dog is the problem.

I think I get what you are saying but in general having dangerous, mean dogs as part of your identity is a problem. Its a HUGE problem here where you can likely not find a single kid who grew up before the 90's without some pretty serious bites or knowing someone who was mauled or killed by a dog.

For a very sizeable part of the population here, an extremely important part of identifying as a local in hawaii is having dog fighting/ "traditional pig hunting" cages in your truck, having big mean "pitbulls" with gold chains on, and celebrating their violence.

Just yesterday I was charged by one of these murder machines at the beach, with the owner screaming "he doesn't bite"....And the check is in the mail.

I remember living in the mainland for a while and there is all this stoner lore about what to do in a dog attack, almost always right after "the cops can't bust you for buying weed if you ask them if they're a cop first" its "if a dog attacks, kick em in the throat". But here, kids have been nailed so many times they know better and had to develop techniques that actually work, like its a goddamn required martial art. At this point in my life, I'm strong enough ,and know that yes the dog will get some licks in on me but the most effective thing I can do is throw the dog. Its a terrible thing, and I have to feel bad for the animal, but it is trying to kill me.

I don't see how any of this is a problem if there is no dog.