[zimandtakandgrrandmimi]

As an important first step toward reducing dog attacks/bites, you need to evaluate your current dangerous dog laws. How effective are they?
Put a stop to leash law violations. These violations seem to be a significant enabler for vicious dog attacks. In areas without leash laws, animal control officers are powerless to catch loose dogs until they hurt someone. In areas with leash laws, the laws are usually weakly enforced and carry only minor penalties for offending owners. Many dog attacks reported in the news are committed by a loose dog or dogs running off their property. Loose dogs can also form packs, and multiple dogs running in a pack are even more dangerous than a single dog. Something needs to be done to stop dogs from roaming.
Strengthening (or enacting) leash laws is an excellent place to start when addressing the issue of dog attacks. Remember, it's not the dog's fault it's loose - it's the owner's fault. Owners are responsible for containing their dogs.
Higher penalties for owners who violate the leash law will dissuade more people from slacking on their duties to contain their dog. Enforcing the leash laws is very important, but often animal control agencies are underfunded and do not have enough employees. In many media-reported cases of dog attacks, the dogs have been loose several times before - but authorities do not respond until an attack occurs.
Increased funding for animal control agencies will allow them to add more officers to the payroll, thereby making it easier for them to act on loose dog calls. Remember, these agencies are already dealing with animal seizures, animal abuse, court cases, vicious dog bite calls, dog fighting rings, and more. Catching stray dogs is not a priority for overloaded officers.
Strengthen and enforce penalties for dangerous owners (and their dangerous dogs). In many municipalities, consequences for an owner of a dangerous dog are too light. In an instance of a dog attack in Illinois that killed a child, the dog's owner was not charged with anything. Here in Austin, the owner of a loose dog that attacked two school children did not face any charges because the dog was killed by a parent during the attack. National animal related organizations like NACA, HSUS, the ASPCA, and the AVMA enthusiastically support the strengthening and enforcement of non-breed-specific dangerous dog laws.
NACA states, in their policy statement regarding dangerous dogs, "Agencies should encourage enactment and stringent enforcement of dangerous/vicious dog laws. When applicable, agencies should not hesitate to prosecute owners for murder, manslaughter, or similar violations resulting from their animal's actions, and their owner lack of responsibility. Laws should clearly define 'dangerous' or 'vicious', and provide for established penalties. Penalties may include fines, imprisonment, and/or the relinquishing of total privileges to pet ownership. If a dangerous/vicious animal is allowed to be kept, laws should specify methods of secure confinement and control. A dangerous/vicious animal when kept outside should be confined in an escape-proof enclosure which is locked and secured on all six sides. Signs should be posted at property entrances and be visible from the nearest sidewalk or street. The licensing record could include a notation which will immediately identify an animal which has been deemed dangerous or vicious."
How do your dangerous dog laws compare? What kind of penalties do owners of vicious dogs face? Could the laws be stronger?
Crack down on dog fighting. This is another issue where lax laws and minimal funding often comes into play. Fighting dogs used to be consistently bred to be human friendly, but today, indiscriminate breeders and vicious individuals have transformed many of these dogs into human-aggressive creatures. Dog fighting today persists underground, and the dogs often suffer in horrible conditions and die gruesome, brutal deaths. Law enforcement officers and animal control departments struggle to break into these dog fighting rings, but the effort requires a lot of money, time, and manpower. When they are underfunded, the effort to stop dog fighting takes longer and is less successful. Additionally, many locales have disgustingly lax laws that allow dog fighters to get off the hook with light sentences and fines that are easily paid by winning dog fighters. There are also loopholes in various state laws that permit dog fight observers to get away free or with minimal punishment, and some states allow people to own dogs that will be used for fighting. How does your state deal with dog fighting? (.pdf)
The HSUS has started a campaign, Animal Fighting: The Final Round, to raise awareness about dog fighting, educate the public, and assist animal control departments and police officers in their efforts to eradicate dog fighting.
Strengthen animal abuse laws. Dogs can become aggressive as a result of cruelty/abuse, neglect, or improper care. Dogs need more than the basic food, water, and shelter stipulations that most communities have. A dog that is left alone in a backyard without socialization or mental stimulation can become unruly, destructive, and possibly aggressive. Chaining/tethering dogs is not only inhumane, it also fosters aggression. Chained dogs account for 25% of all fatal dog attacks. Many communities now have laws limiting the length of time a dog may be kept on a tether, what kinds of tethers are acceptable, what length/weight of tether is acceptable, etc. Physical abuse received from a person can make a dog distrustful of human beings and prone to attack out of fear. Communities need strong anti-abuse laws to put a stop to the owner-imposed neglect and pain that prompts some dogs to bite/attack humans.
Prevent criminals from owning dogs. The following people should not be allowed to own dogs: drug dealers, human or animal abusers, and anyone convicted of a violent offense (assault, rape, robbery, etc.). I could probably come up with more. These particular individuals have proven themselves unconcerned with the health and well-being of others. They can not be trusted to raise a dog with a concern for public safety. I don't feel that such a law needs to apply to individuals who may have committed a non-violent crime.
Regulate breeders. Although there is heated debate as to how best to do this, there is little denying the need for regulations regarding breeding. Backyard breeders and puppy mills produce mass quantities of puppies that are genetically compromised, both behaviorally and health-wise. They breed for money, without concern for good temperament or public safety. Often, their treatment of their breeding dogs and puppies borders on inhumane. Additionally, pet overpopulation puts a financial strain on animal control agencies and shelters.
What approaches can be made to combat dog attacks without needing additional laws?
Fund public spay/neuter initiatives. These programs are important, especially low-cost ones. Unneutered dogs, particularly males, are far more likely to attack a human than either neutered males or spayed females. Unneutered male dogs also tend to escape and wander more than neutered males. Low-cost spay/neuter programs reach out to citizens who may be unable to afford the regular cost of these surgeries. Do you already have a spay/neuter program in effect? Try making more funds available to the program and educating the public about the need to spay/neuter their pets.
Educate about dog behavior. A breakdown in communications between dog and human can have serious consequences for both parties. In particular, young children should be taught in school how to avoid dog bites. Almost half of all dog bite victims in the U.S. are young children. The HSUS offers information on how to "Stay Dog Bite Free!"
Encourage responsible dog ownership. There's more to keeping a dog than a food bowl and a dog house. Dogs are pack animals and they love to be with their "pack", their human family. They need attention and affection to be mentally well-adjusted individuals. They need proper socialization and training to ensure that they will become a good canine citizen. They also need exercise and mental stimulation, which can be provided through complex dog sports like agility, or even just a simple game of "fetch". Supporting dog sports and events in your area also shows owners that dogs are more than just lawn furniture. It may get some dogs out of backyards and into homes as more valuable family members.
Provide low-cost obedience training classes and behavior help hotlines for dog owners. Many owners struggle with their dog's behavior problems but don't know where to turn for help, or can't afford a regular training class. By assisting them with their troubles, you will not only reduce the liklihood of dog bites/attacks - you will prevent relinquishment of pets to the animal shelters because of misbehavior issues.
You don't need to enact breed-specific legislation to make your city a safer place to live.
*
-excerpt from stopbsl.com

[ACampbell]

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm

Also another good link

Breed-specific laws were enacted because, in the past, courts and legislatures considered it to be a "well-known fact" that pit bulls are "unpredictable," "vicious" creatures owned only by "drug dealers, dog fighters, gang members," or other undesirable members of society. [Citing State v. Anderson (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 168.] ... As scientific information advances and becomes available, courts have a duty to reconsider issues and make decisions which are supported by the actual evidence presented, instead of relying on "common knowledge" and opinion generated by newspaper sensationalism and hearsay, rather than accurate, scientific evidence. [Par.] As the evidence presented in this case demonstrates, previous cases involving "vicious dog" laws, especially from the late 1980's and early 1990's, relied on what is now outdated information which perpetuated a stereotypical image of pit bulls. ... The trial court noted that all the animal behaviorists from both parties testified that a pit bull, trained and properly socialized like other dogs, would not exhibit any more dangerous characteristics than any other breed of dog. After considering all the evidence before it, the trial court agreed, finding that pit bulls, as a breed, are not more dangerous than other breeds."

So, those of you that want to ban pits...since after a court found them not to be more dangerous than any other breed...ban you own breed as well...you know, you can't be too safe.

I also LOVE **sarcasm** the stereotype that a lot of people associate with pitbulls. I am a pitbull owner...so I MUST be a drug dealer, I MUST fight my dogs, and I MUST be a gang member.
I am none of those things, I hold a security clearance for the US government (meaning they do not see me as a security risk, I have NEVER even had a parking ticket) I am not the only person that owns pitbulls that isn't a creep.
The people that these "statistics" are comprised of aren't responsible owners, but you would (by voting for BSL) lump sum us into the same group...

[zimandtakandgrrandmimi]

The following is the official statement on breed specific legislation
of the Humane Society of the United States

The HSUS opposes legislation aimed at eradicating or strictly regulating dogs based solely on their breed for a number of reasons. Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is a common first approach that many communities take. Thankfully, once research is conducted most community leaders correctly realize that BSL won't solve the problems they face with dangerous dogs.

There are over 4.5 million dog bites each year. This is an estimate as there is no central reporting agency for dog bites, thus breed and other information is not captured. Out of the millions of bites, about 10-20 are fatal each year. While certainly tragic, it represents a very small number statistically and should not be considered as a basis for sweeping legislative action.

It is imperative that the dog population in the community be understood. To simply pull numbers of attacks does not give an accurate representation of a breed necessarily. For example, by reviewing a study that states there have been five attacks by golden retrievers in a community and 10 attacks by pit bulls in that same community it would appear that pit bulls are more dangerous. However, if you look at the dog populations in that community and learn that there are 50 golden retrievers present and 500 pit bulls, then the pit bulls are actually the safer breed statistically.

While breed is one factor that contributes to a dog's temperament, it alone cannot be used to predict whether a dog may pose a danger to his or her community. A September 2000 study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (VetMed Today: Special Report) further illustrates this point. The report details dog bite related fatalities in the United States from 1979 through 1998, and reveals that over the nineteen years examined in the study at least 25 different breeds or crossbreeds of dogs were involved in fatally wounding human beings. Breeds cited range from oft-maligned pit bulls and Rottweilers to the legendary "forever loyal" breed of St. Bernards. The study was conducted by a group of veterinarians, medical doctors, and psychology and public health experts.

The main conclusion of the study was that breed-specific legislation doesn't work for several reasons: that there are inherent problems in trying to determine a dog's breed, making enforcement of breed-specific legislation difficult at best; that fatal attacks represent a very small portion of bite-related injuries and should not be the major factor driving public policy; and that existing non-breed-specific legislation already exists and offers promise for the prevention of dog bites.

Two decades ago, pit bulls and Rottweilers (the most recent breeds targeted) attracted little to no public concern. At that time it was the Doberman pinscher who was being vilified. In 2001, few people had heard of the Presa Canario breed, involved in the tragic, fatal attack on Diane Whipple in California in January of that year. Now that breed is being sought by individuals who desire the new "killer dog." Unfortunately, the "problem dog" at any given time is often the most popular breed among individuals who tend to be irresponsible, if not abusive, in the control and keeping of their pets. Simply put, if you ban one breed, individuals will just move on to another one. Banning a breed only speeds up the timetable.

Communities that have banned specific breeds have discovered that it has not been the easy answer they thought it would be. In some areas, media hype has actually increased the demand for dogs whose breed is in danger of being banned. Animal control agencies, even those that are well funded and equipped, have found the laws to be an enforcement nightmare.

Restrictions placed on a specific breed fail to address the larger problems of abuse, aggression training, and irresponsible dog ownership. Again, breed alone is not an adequate indicator of a dog's propensity to bite. Rather, a dog's tendency to bite is a product of several factors, including but not limited to:

· ·Early socialization, or lack thereof, of the dog to people.
· ·Sound obedience training for recognition of where he or she "fits" with regard to dominance and people, or mistraining for fighting or increased aggression.
· ·Genetic makeup, including breed and strains within a breed.
· ·Quality of care and supervision by the owner (is the dog part of the family or is she kept chained out side?).
· ·Current levels of socialization of the dog with his or her human family.
· ·Behavior of the victim.
· ·Whether the dog has been spayed or neutered.

If the goal is to offer communities better protection from dogs who are dangerous, then thoughtful legislation that addresses responsible dog keeping is in order. Legislation aimed at punishing the owner of the dog rather than punishing the dog is far more effective in reducing the number of dog bites and attacks. Well enforced, non-breed-specific laws offer an effective and fair solution to the problem of dangerous dogs in all communities.

Comprehensive "dog bite" legislation, coupled with better consumer education and forced responsible pet keeping efforts, would do far more to protect communities than banning a specific breed. The HSUS encourages you to read the Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

The HSUS is committed to keeping dogs and people safe and is available and willing to offer advice, educational materials and model legislation to communities interested in decreasing the incidence of dog bites and aggression.

[lovemygreys]

Originally Posted by Roscosmom

With that said, if DFW were to propose such a ban I would support it wholeheartedly because the number of bad owners out weighs the good owners by far around here. Just yesterday Rosco and I came this close to getting attacked by a pit early in the morning. No one was around and that dog literally burst through the wood at the bottom of his fence to come charging at us, barking. It took all of the courage in my soul to chase him away. I was ready to kill him..or die trying.

Be careful what you wish for. Google "heeler bites" and see how many links come up about biting heelers...people trying to find answers on how to stop their heeler from biting everything/everyone.

Herding breeds - known for nipping.

Here's an excerpt from one site:

For the third time in about a year the city council has declared a dog "vicious". A blue heeler mix was banned from the community after it bit a small child and chased other children.

Heeler attacks and injures 3 children and 1 adult.

From an Aussie site:

In an analysis of casualty department attendances and inpatient hospital for dog bite wounds at Austin Hospital in Victoria, where the breed was known and recorded, German Shepherd/Alsatian accounted for 47% of the bites. Other breeds included Blue Heeler (12%), Labrador (9%), Dobermann (6%), terriers (6%), Chow, Border Collie, St.Bermard, Red Setter all at 3%, and crossbreeds 6%.

Do we need to get heelers on a BSL list maybe? Actually, cattle dogs are already the number one most dangerous pure bred dog on the Brisbane City Council list - beating out GSDs, rotties and dobermans.

DOG ATTACK RISKS AND LIABILITIES: Danger rankings for breeds on Brisbane City Council's dangerous dog list

Breeds (ranked according to danger rating)

PUREBREEDS

1. Cattle dog

2. Bull terrier

3. German Shepherd

4. Rottweiler

5. Dobermann

6. Staffordshire Bull Terrier

7. Border Collie

In my own corner of the world, on walks with our dogs (we live in the country) there are numerous off leash "country dogs" - the one we experience regular aggression from is a heeler.

All dogs can bite. Once pitts are gone, it'll be some other breed. I'll guarantee you that.

[ACampbell]

Here's a prime example of how BSL can affect anyone!
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/articles...dormistake.htm

This was done by an Animal Control officer...someone who should be knowledgible in dogs...right?

[Dakota Spirit]

Originally Posted by lovemygreys

All dogs can bite. Once pitts are gone, it'll be some other breed. I'll guarantee you that.

And that, I think is the main point of this whole ordeal. So many people think the banning will stop after all the 'dangerous' breeds are taken care of, that suddenly we will be in a society of only 'safe' dogs and it makes me so sad for our animals that some can be that ignorant. You don't have to like Pits, I honestly couldn't give two hoots about that - but open your eyes and see what's going on. This is why I oppose BSL of any kind. I don't care if it's a Chi or Yorkie or any of the breeds of which I'm not overly fond - this isn't a breed issue. It's about protecting our animals and preventing what is sure to come in the future. That is, preventing the ban on dog ownership all together.

I won't get into the actual debate because much has already been said - my feelings on the APBT are generally well known at this point, anyway.

[zimandtakandgrrandmimi]

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/10/0...nian.kills.ap/

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/Ga....2.327350.html



http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008...acks.com/cern/

http://www.workingpitbull.com/fatalbook.htm


do we ban pomerainians now? greyhounds? akitas? chihuahua mixes? LABRADOR-BASSET HOUND MIXES?

all dogs bite...

http://www.fataldogattacks.com/

[Roscosmom]

All dogs do bite, very true! And lmg's, I'm aware of the heeler reputation. Although the 'fad' of owning them doesn't seem quite as out of hand as the pit situation. Really- I'm in Texas and I see very few of them, but it seems every other dog is a pit. Overall I do not mean to come off as "cold"..but something has to be done to get the situation under control. Right now it's the mandatory spay/neuter situation here in Texas. If that doesn't control the problem I would not be surprised to see a BSL next.

[ACampbell]

Agreed that SOMETHING needs to be done with all the strays and packs of strays that attack people, the bad owners, etc...I really don't think a ban would fix any of these problems. All it will do is make people produce more puppies and get more money for the puppies because they are illegal - do you think drugs would be as prevalent or expensive if they weren't illegal, I know drug dealers wouldn't make the money they do if they were legal (I'm not saying to legalize them, but it shows that making something illegal doesn't really seem to help)
There's lots of things that can be done to help remedy the problem, not exacerbate it. A few towns in TX have already put in for BSL (Waco, Lubbock) - I think a good example is what has happened in Ontario Canada...they put in a ban, and look at some of the people affected by it...people who don't even own pitbulls are being accused of it (read the Lucky story I posted above) so obviously the system is still flawed (also was not an isolated incident).
All dogs have the capacity to bite, if one breed is banned who knows what will be next. Horses? Horses can bite or kick and cause lots of fatalities every year...accidentally or intentionally...there are lots of irresponsible horse/dog/cat/everything owners out there - otherwise we'd have no need whatsoever for the ASPCA, shelters, or rescues.
The only problem with a mandatory S/N law is that only responsible people will abide by it - same will go for a ban. The same people who aren't having their animals S/N are the same ones that will ignore the ban...I don't see that as a solution.
I think the media coverage, as biased as it may be, is another contributer to the problem. "PITBULL BITES _______" headlines the news. They put news blurbs between commercial breaks...so Billy Bob Gangbanger that thinks having a vicious dog is "cool" thinks "Heyyyyyy, that breed of dog bit somebody, I want that kind of dog" - again, just making the problem worse. Also the fact that a lot of the news stories depict the victims account...if the victim is not saavy to dog breeds, anything with a fat head they might consider a "pitbull" - to include a lab. I've also noticed that most the news reports never show the dog itself. It's like reporting that a "hispanic female robbed liquor store at gunpoint" when in fact are they sure they were hispanic, or were they just darker skinned, or Arabic (I'm constantly being asked if I'm hispanic, and I am not, because I have dark hair and skin)
It's all about the perception of the victim when it comes to things like that.
Oddly enough, my mom has a pitbull/heeler mix at her house, that is strikingly similar to your dog Rosco's...head and all...I know what her breeding is (I saw her parents, they were a neighbors dogs) if she were to bite someone what would they label her? She doesn't look like a pitbull really at all. Would it be your breed or mine that would get blamed for the bite? There's just so many inconsistencies and no real solution to the problem with BSL.

There's a lot of ways we can prevent BSL and help the problem...if I may suggest that they are looked into.
I appreciate the less "defensive" tone you've taken Roscos...BSL affects everyone, it's also been proven to be ineffective as for dog bite statistics (in other countries that have enforced it) - something else, if you are interested, to look into.

[zimandtakandgrrandmimi]

Originally Posted by Roscosmom

All dogs do bite, very true! And lmg's, I'm aware of the heeler reputation. Although the 'fad' of owning them doesn't seem quite as out of hand as the pit situation. Really- I'm in Texas and I see very few of them, but it seems every other dog is a pit. Overall I do not mean to come off as "cold"..but something has to be done to get the situation under control. Right now it's the mandatory spay/neuter situation here in Texas. If that doesn't control the problem I would not be surprised to see a BSL next.

but is it mandatory speuter for just pit bulls? what about all the other dogs in the world?

restrict all the breeders to X number of dogs at any given time. and pass a law that they can't breed without a reasonable number of folks on the waiting list. like if X breed of dog commonly produces ten pups a litter..you can't breed X breed of dog without twenty people on the waiting list.

mandatory speuter for ALL dogs of all breeds that are not breeding or show dogs.

encourage breeders to open their kennels to house and adopt out strays..

harsher fines and punishment for thos who violate everything from leash/containment laws to dog fighting statutes.

the important point is that we pass laws placing responsibility on ALL owners.

these are just possibilities.


let me throw you a little tip:

i've been researching the apbt for around 6 years now. part of that study involved understanding dogfighting. in the course of those studies i've visited several pro dog fighting forums. these people are criminals of the lowest order. they do not care about the welfare of their dogs. consequently they could give a rat's *** about banning apbts. dogfighters do NOT exclusively use american pit bull terriers as pit dogs. on those forums I saw akitas, several shepard breeds, mastiffs of every shape and size, some of the little tiny terriers AND a man in mexico breeding together certain breeds with the goal of creating a NEW BREED OF PIT DOG, UNRECOGNIZED BY AUTHORITIES.

they do not care what kind of dog it is, as long as it fights well.

[lovemygreys]

Originally Posted by Roscosmom

Overall I do not mean to come off as "cold"..but something has to be done to get the situation under control.

Yes...but the answer is not breed bans OR mandatory spay/neuter. It's passing, enforcing and strengthening existing laws that hold pet owners responsible for the actions of their pets.

Some people choose to drink and drive, speed, drive recklessly, ignore stop signs, speed up through yellow lights, etc, etc, etc....But we don't ban cars. We don't punish all of society and take the privilege of driving away from everyone. We have laws to punish those who don't drive responsibly.

[Willowy]

I find it VERY interesting that Roscosmom would support a breed ban on pits, while owning an ACD. A local county (not just the town, the entire county, even rurals!) recently enacted breed bans, and the dogs banned are:
Pit bulls
Rottweilers
Dobermans
Blue Heelers
Wolves (wolf hybrids)

I find it very interesting that some of the more commonly banned dogs (such as Chows, Cane Corso, Presa Canario, Akitas, GSDs, etc.) aren't on that list, yet "Blue Heelers" are. Because "they're part Dingo". Good thing you don't live in McCook County, South Dakota....they didn't even grandfather existing dogs in. Everybody who had a dog of those breeds had to find it a home out-of-county or euthanize it within 30 days. And even a dog that LOOKED like a pit, Rott, Dobe, Heeler or wolf had to go. I wonder how many Huskies were killed.

Sadly, only one woman (who had a 10-year-old pit that she had to put down) made a big deal about it, everybody else just killed their dogs, no questions asked. As it said at the end of one article on the subject---"The decision caused little controversy". South Dakotans are not suspicious enough of their local government, IMO. However, I guarantee you that if that had been a spay/neuter requirement law, everybody would have fought it. You can't tell them how to breed their dogs.

Breed bans are sad, and display exactly how stupid most people are.