MISSOURI PIT BULL RESCUE

Legislation is due, laws are in order, and the situation is out of hand. Let's be sure of our focus. Laws are for humans, not for animals who have no say about the captive environment they must endure." Rod Jones, Animal Activist

Breed Specific Ban

A group of laws that prohibit particular breeds, usually pit bulls (a type of dog, not a breed) and sometimes Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Akitas, Dobermans, Chow Chows, and a few others. These laws are usually passed after several attacks by a particular breed so that city councils can assure citizens they are “doing something” about a voter concern.

But breed bans don't work. They target all dogs of a breed -- The innocent as well as the guilty; are difficult to enforce; and do not end the use of guardian dogs by criminals. If pit bulls in their various incarnations are banned, drug dealers and other felons switch to another breed or mix. In the meantime, the ill-tempered terrier mix that bites the hand that feeds it and the poorly-bred purebred that attacks the neighborhood children pose a far greater danger to people than the obedience-trained American Staffordshire Terrier that is a registered therapy dog but cannot step foot inside the city.

Far better than breed-specific bans are strict laws to control aggressive dogs of any breed or mix. Known as generic vicious dog laws, they put restrictions on the ownership of dogs that pose a danger to people, restrictions such as confinement in locked, escape-proof kennels while outdoors on the owner's property; muzzles when the dog is off the property; and purchase of a liability insurance policy.

Source: Dog owner's guide

Banning Pit Bulls

Banning Pit Bulls would be like banning cars because people get killed in car accidents! Who's responsible, the car or the driver/manufacturer? Any car can be deadly in the wrong hands or if built with defective parts. Same thing with dogs... Any dog.

Pit Bulls are no more responsible for the way they are bred, raised and trained, than cars are responsible for the way they are designed, built and driven.

Simply put, the best argument against breed bans is that they are costly and ineffective. Breed bans are often a knee-jerk reaction from politicians who want to say they are "doing something", after a highly publicized dog attack (of any breed). This is a useless exercise. What kind of message are we telling abusive and irresponsible individuals when legislation makes the dogs pay the price for their action?

Criminals habitually break laws, so having an "illegal breed" may indeed be attractive to undesirable individuals and entice them to breed and sell more "illegal dogs". If their dog is confiscated and killed, they don't care. They will just get another one because BSL punishes the dog, not the owner.

On the other hand, law abiding and responsible owners, whose dogs love people and have never done anything wrong, can see their homes invaded, often without a search warrant, and their beloved family member dragged away (in front of their children) to be killed. Not because the dog was unstable or mean, but simply because of its breed. Meanwhile, the owners of truly dangerous dogs (of other breed) escape punishment because their breed is not targeted by legislation and therefore believed "safe".

A 10 Lbs Pomeranian killed a baby a few years ago... Obviously a problem with that particular dog, not the breed. "The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)"

Should we ban Pomeranians?

Because of a serious lack of regulation in dog breeding many dogs inherit defective genes and are sold to irresponsible owners. A breed ban will not resolve the problem. This non sense will continue with the next macho breed and will become an endless race between breed specific legislators and unscrupulous breeders.

A Pit Bull breeder was shut down a few years ago because Pit Bulls were banned in Topeka, Kansas. All his dogs were seized and destroyed just for being the wrong breed at the wrong place. The man now breeds "African Boerboel", a rare breed from the Mastiff family, completely unknown to legislators. Unlike American Pit Bull Terriers however, who are known for their love of people, Boerboels are serious guard dogs bred specifically as protectors. A poorly bred and irresponsibly owned Boerboel might actually be way more dangerous than a poorly bred and irresponsibly owned Pit Bull. This is what a breed ban has accomplished in Topeka...

Another good example is the Presa Canario. 10 years ago no one had heard of those dogs. We now find them in local shelters, picked up as strays in the streets. Ironically, the breed became popular after two of them killed Diane Whipple in California - By portraying them as vicious and blood thirsty beasts the media has turned them into the new "dog du jour" among gangsters and thugs.

Now wait until the "Pakistan Bully Kuta" makes his arrival in the US... People will surely miss the regretted American Pit Bull Terrier then....

Here are some facts to consider or... Things that make you go hmm.....

"Pit bull" is not a breed, but a "type" that encompasses several registered breeds and crossbreeds. Therefore, statistics that claim "Pit bulls" are responsible for some percentage of attacks are lumping many breeds together, then comparing that to other dogs that are counted as individual breeds......

Breed identification is left up to victim and witness testimony, and is often wrong. Due to negative press, biting dogs of almost ANY breed have been called "Pit bulls". Try this little quiz for fun: Find the Pit Bull - See how many people you know can pick out a Pit bull from pictures, let alone in the middle of an attack.....

Even the Center for Disease Control supports the position that irresponsible owners, not breed, are the chief cause of dog bites. They have done studies that indicate that the most "dangerous breed" of dog changes with popularity and reputation.... Remember in the 70s it was the German Shepherd.. Then the Doberman in the 80s.... Replaced by the Rottweiler in the 90s.....

Search the American Temperament Test Society. Pit bulls have an average score that beats even the "ultimate family dog", the Golden Retriever.....

The ADBA registered 220,000 APBTs in 1999, making them the #1 dog in America. According to the latest statistics, even considering the amazing amount of Pit Bulls out there, most of them being owned irresponsibly by uncaring individuals, Pit Bulls do NOT top the chart when it comes to deadly dog attacks.

Lets think of it this way. There are 10 dogs on a street. One is a St-Bernard, one is a Great Dane, 2 are Labs, one chihuahua and 5 are Pit Bull type dogs.... Oh, and 4 of those Pit Bulls are kept chained outside, neglected, rarely fed and often beaten by the owner.... Statistically, which dog has more chance to get in trouble?

Really... Think about it... Is it really the dogs fault?

The message is clear; lets stop targeting the dogs! Pit Bulls are no more dangerous than any other strong and large dog. They just happen to attract more irresponsible and abusive owners than any other breed... Do Pit Bull haters really think that a global breed ban would convince criminals who use these dogs as weapons to own Basset Hounds? And if they did, how long do you think it would take before Basset Hounds start making the news?

A breed ban will only remove Pit Bulls from good people's homes and leave them in the hands of animal abusers who couldn't care less about the law... Better think twice before supporting such measure...

Breed Ban IQ Test

Breed Ban IQ Test

1. If you were the sheriff in your town and you learned that Toyotas were disproportionately involved in more accidents than any other model, would you:
(a) Ban all Toyotas and confiscate the Toyota of anyone caught driving one
(b) Arrest the reckless drivers responsible for those accidents?

2. Which course of action in Question 1 do you think would:
(a) inconvenience the fewest number of people?
(b) be the more efficient use of taxpayer dollars?
(c) be more effective in preventing future accidents involving Toyotas?

3. If your answer to Question 1 was (a) -- ban Toyotas -- and the sheriff's department learned that, by a statistical quirk, drivers of confiscated Toyotas were now perpetrating further accidents by driving, say, Hondas, would you then ban Hondas? If not, why not?

4. If your answer to Question 3 was, "Ban Hondas too, dammit, something HAS to be done," then would you propose a ban on ALL car models with names ending in "a," such as Kias and Mazdas, reasoning that all these brands are pretty much designed for the same purpose? If not, why not? If so, how would you deal with car brands that end in the SOUND of "a," such as Chevrolet?

5. Are you beginning to understand that:

(a) because most of the tens of millions of pet dogs are NOT registered, "breed" cannot be defined in a meaningful way?
(b) that "miscreants" employ Pit Bulls, German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Akitas, Great Danes -- that is, whichever dog is handy -- as personal tools of terrorism?
(c) that law enforcement authorities could waste inordinate amounts of time (and, therefore, taxpayer dollars) policing a breed ban, adding to their jobs a task perhaps even more meaningless than enforcing jaywalking laws?
(d) that the people most likely affected by a breed ban -- that is, those inconvenienced, harassed and likely to suffer damage -- are the 99.9% majority of utterly innocent dogs and people?
(e) most important, that breed bans do ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to address the real problem: Human scumbags who abuse animals?

Key: If your answer to any part of Question 5 is "no," I'm afraid you have flunked. Please go back and reconsider your responses.
Hint: The answer to the question, "What shall we do about the bank robber who got away on a bicycle?" is not: Ban bicycles.

Real answer: If your dog hurts someone, you -- not the dog -- should be responsible. Anti-cruelty and anti-dog-fighting laws already exist. Tell your mayor, and city or county or provincial council to up the current penalties, and insist that judges enforce those penalties against lawbreakers.

Test created by Paul Glassner, SF/SPCA