Is your favorite breed of dog “black-listed?” It may surprise owners and non-canine owners alike that there are restrictions out there dictating what breed of dog you are allowed to own. These restrictions can range from those found in apartment leases and homeowners insurance policies to laws found in city or municipal ordinances, to even state-wide laws. Some of these laws declare outright that certain breeds of dogs are “dangerous” based on breed alone. The dogs typically listed are Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Huskies, or the more general, usually undefined term, “fighting dogs.” Y0u hear that, Rin Tin-Tin? NO DOGS ALLOWED!
Image: Amazon
These laws have been passed in the interest of public safety with little thought given to the fact that a dog’s predisposition to aggressiveness cannot be perfectly predicted based on the breed of the dog alone. They limit where a person and their pet choose to live and prohibit a person from interacting with companies solely based on the type of animal they own. Criminal penalties may also be associated with these laws, such as fines or even jail time.
Criminologists have always wondered is it nature or nurture when examining humans who commit crime. That same question must be asked about “dangerous” dog breeds. Are certain breeds predisposed to aggression? Or are these “dangerous” breeds more likely to be owned by irresponsible owners that may be attracted to this breed stereotype thusly creating a self-fulfilling prophecy? I would greatly wager the answer to the latter is a resounding YES! I mean, how many Pembroke Welsh Corgis have you seen kept as “outside dogs” shackled up in a yard wearing a heavy chain and a padlock around their neck? I’m going to guess not many.
Breed specific “dangerous dog” laws give credence to the notion that certain dogs are beyond the saving and cannot safely be a part of our communities. And that is just not true. Even Michael Vick’s fighting Pit Bulls were rehabilitated. In addition, the American Kennel Club, the ASPCA, and the Humane Society of the United States are all strongly opposed to any legislation that defines a dog as “dangerous” based only on breed.
Dogs are just like people, and sometimes they can surprise you. Thankfully, this homeless Pit Bull was around to save a woman and her child from being victimized. This “dangerous” dog saved a couple of lives and may have found himself a forever home in the process.
Related articles
- Md. Court Rules Pit Bulls ‘More Vicious’; Owners Could Be Held Accountable For Attacks (baltimore.cbslocal.com)
- Limerick Woman calls for Ban on Huskys (promissorynotes.wordpress.com)
- United Airlines bans transport of certain breeds of dogs as allegations of Dogism surface (lesliebrodie.wordpress.com)
- Breed Specific Legislation (pitbulltopics.wordpress.com)
- Repost: How to Protect Yourself and Your Dog from Breed Discrimination Laws (risablairlovitz.com)
Louise Behiel
May 2, 2012
Breed laws are stupid and they don’t make sense. any dog can bite and hurt a person. for awhile there were more annual dog bites from cocker spaniels than any other breed. but they weren’t banned because they’re considered pets and ‘nice’. but as you say, keep a dog on a chain, locked to a post outside and you have to expect some reaction from the dog. and you have to know those dogs aren’t getting appropriate amounts of exercise…what do you expect? we had a horrible tragedy here a few months ago. a family pet, owned by a dog trainer, bit and killed their 3 day old baby. was it a tragedy? absolutely. was it horrid? Yes. but it is not about the breed. rather it’s about one event. one dog. and a loss that can never be mitigated. thanks for a good post. i’ll get off my soapbox now.
True STORIES.
May 2, 2012
Yes, yes, yes, yes!
Marcela
May 2, 2012
Totally agree with you: breed laws are stupid. Yes any dog can bite, that is very true. Because a lot of dogs are not socialized properly these dogs react badly when confronted with things that are to be non-threatening such as children, bikes, other dogs, etc. But whose fault is this? The human that is supposed to be responsible enough to take the time to socialize this dog regardless of the breed. Irresponsible, lazy, people that care little for the dogs they purchase or adopt. The ones that pay the price are the dogs not the humans. No breed should be banned, and courts should treat cases on a case by case basis and not single out any one breed.
anotherboomerblog
May 2, 2012
I love dogs – it is the humans who scare me.
A dog always communicates the truth throughis or her actions. I’ve had more people tell me that “My dog is friendly, see, he’s wagging his tail” when it is an aggressive wag – and then they were astounded when their dog attacked mine.
Dogs need guidance, nurturance and understanding. They are not people wearing fur coats. I am not crazy about certain breeds, but that’s a personal thing. A herding dog makes a lousy apartment dweller. I don’t like to see breed bans, because any dog can bite or be aggressive and that is the responsibility of the owner – and most owners are totally clueless.
inkazar
May 5, 2012
Never saw a dog fly over domiciles and drop ordinance on men, women and children. Never saw a dog come home after too many beers and beat his bitch to a pulp. Never saw a dog do something mean just to obtain some sort of perverse satisfaction.
OK, so much for species discrimination (by the most violent species on the planet against one of the most loyal and loving).
As for breed discrimination, as a pit bull owner (one of my 3 rescues, one of 7 dogs I’ve lived with in my lifetime) I can say this dog is the finest, silliest, most submissive in play, most loving of children of all my dogs ever. Yet I also know if there were any serious trouble he would not think twice about giving up his life to protect me and mine.
Thanks for this post!
crimineepery
May 7, 2012
Thank you for all of your comments! This is a topic that is close to my heart as I’ve recently become a “dog person.” This is just another example of how people can create laws based on good intentions when the law has no merit at all.
Paradigm
May 7, 2012
“Are certain breeds predisposed to aggression? Or are these “dangerous” breeds more likely to be owned by irresponsible owners that may be attracted to this breed stereotype thusly creating a self-fulfilling prophecy? I would greatly wager the answer to the latter is a resounding YES!”
It’s not just about aggression. Bad owners will look for dogs that can do a lot of damage rather than just be aggressive. Muscular dogs with large jaws and strong necks can do more damage than others. Dogs with those characteristics are found among the top killers:
http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/lifestyle/pets/which-dogs-are-most-likely-to-kill-humans%3F
crimineepery
May 7, 2012
That was exactly where I was going with that statement. Irresponsible owners who purchase or adopt “dangerous dogs” may do so based on that stereotype– a dog that is fierce looking and that could do a lot of potential damage. Because it is the stereotype that is appealing to them, they may treat the dog differently than they would another breed. This is why you don’t see many of these types of owners with chihuahuas or corgis chained up outside their houses. That is not “the look” they are going for.
Thank you for the link! Many people who support breed bans would consider statistics like the ones you linked as evidence that these types of laws are needed. When really the important thing to consider is whether or not an owner could be responsible enough to care for and properly socialize a breed of dog considered to be “dangerous.” I say this knowing that there are breeds of dog that require more training, exercise, and attention than other breeds. For example, a commenter above stated, “a herding dog makes a lousy apartment dweller.” I know this well as I have to two herding dogs in an apartment and they -need- daily exercise. If I wasn’t able to give them the training and walks they needed, they would definitely become noisy nuisances to my neighbors and would probably chew a hole the wall.
The article you linked also indicates bites and deaths can be prevented by using breed restrictions and goes on to say that “30% of dog-bite-related deaths resulted from groups of owned dogs that were free roaming off the owner’s property.” In my opinion this statement does not show support for breed restrictions. “Free roaming dogs” would fall under owner responsibility. No dog should be left unattended in a yard, especially a yard that is not securely fenced.
When articles misuse data like this, it reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: “Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forty percent of all people know that.” – Homer Simpson.
I was actually going to post a link to the study mentioned in the article. However, after reading the study, it seemed that the requirements for reporting the bites and deaths were somewhat subjective and may not have been based on the most accurate data.
Breezy Kiefair
May 12, 2012
animals behave in the way their “parents” teach and train them to be…. just like kids… blame the parents.