Saw this on a friend's LJ.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Wendy, this is exactly what I would have written if I could write as well as you. Lovely and intelligent and rational. Thanks.

[Prudence]

Of course, in many places animal control units are underfunded almost to the point of non-existence. There's no one to enforce leash laws and license requirements or take reports on dangerous dogs. It's a service many taxpayers are unwilling to fund, and therefore the only viable control mechanism is silly laws regulating breeds.

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

I found this additional comment on this issue:

However, I find it interesting that there is a big AKC show in Denver every year, maybe twice a year. Every one with a staffie or a bull terrier ... they are in violation of the pitbull ban. The dogs could be legally seized.

I don't think so. Pitbulls are a breed unto themselves, and although staffies and terriers are related, they aren't pitbulls by any means.

Originally Posted by Eliza Hodgkins 1812

What is not being talked about at all is owner responsibility. A pitbull isn't born an attack dog. It's just not a viscious dog by nature, though I've come across a few breeds that seem particularly territorial, and they sometimes make me nervous. But a pitbull has to be trained to attack, from what I understand. And if someone is training a dog to attack, they should be held responsible if his or her dog attacks someone.

I halfway agree. The problem with several breeds right now is that they are being overbred. If someone has a pit with a genetic tendency to be vicious and they breed them, chances are the pups will have the same trait. Then someone breeds those pups, etc. etc. until eventually a good percentage of the breed has aggressive tendencies. With pit fighting being as common as it is, the fighters are going to breed the most vicious dogs that they can. Pitbulls aren't an AKC registerable breed, so nearly all the breeders are backyard breeders, meaning they have no understanding of genetic traits and won't thoroughly screen their dogs.

So, yes, I think pits generally have a tendency to be aggressive. However, they certainly aren't the only breed to have that tendency. An owner of any dog with an aggresive breed history needs to be cautious in the way they train their dogs and watchful for any signs of aggression. I think that more often than not, the aggression has to be brought out of the dog through neglect or training. So, rereading your post, it seems like I completely agree with what you are saying.

I think generally with dogs that kill, it has very little to do with breed. My first dane, Thanos, was the sweetest dog you could imagine. However, he had hidden neurological issues that eventually made him very aggressive. The day he bit me it was clear he wasn't in control of himself. I was lucky that he bit me first and not my son, but he just snapped and wasn't in his right mind any longer. I knew a two year old girl that was viciously attacked by a lab that was raised with kids. She pulled his tail and the next thing you knew she was in the hospital for weeks.

I think the strict regulations we need have more to do with breeders than with dogs. A license to breed would be a godsend to all the dogs in our pounds. I feel for the owners whose dogs are being taken and killed.

Originally Posted by Wendybeth

I think the big concern with pitbulls is the locked-jaw thing. When they bite, they often lock up their jaws and they have to be beaten senseless or killed before they let go.

As far as I know, pitbulls are like dobermans in that if you insert a hard stick at a certain point on their jaw then it releases their jaw. I could be wrong. One would at least think that you could give a tranquilizer instead of killing it.

[wendybeth]

Most people don't go out on walkies armed with tranquilizer darts, Traci.

We've had several really bad pit bull incidents here this year, and the breed is associated with gang-bangers, etc, so it's not unreasonable that they are becoming feared in the general population. It's just unfortunate, because I know many people that raised them the right way and they are very kind, loyal dogs. You make a good point about them being bred for violence, which is where owner liability should come into play. The police departments across the country are largely funded by traffic citation fines, so why couldn't the animal control industry do the same? They could make some bucks, innocent dogs won't be slaughtered, and the ones responsible for the dogs would be held accountable. At the same time, they should toughen up animal cruelty laws- it's ridiculous that people can be so evil to animals and have little or no repercussions, yet an animal can be put down simply for being the 'wrong' breed.

(Btw- you are too sweet, Eliza- if I had 1/10th your writing ability, I'd be a very happy girl!)

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Most people don't go out on walkies armed with tranquilizer darts, Traci.

Good point. You are right about owner responsibility. I love pits. I doubt I would own one, but I think nearly any dog can be a good dog if they are treated well.