# Dangerous breeds and rage syndrome questions



## RubyLove (May 4, 2009)

I have always been of the opinion that the temperament and behavior of a dog is based on the individual animal, not its breed. Because of this I don't see why certain breeds are banned and I feel that if somewhere is going to have a ban it should be based on the size of the animal, e.g. no dogs over 50lbs, not it's breed.

Where I live (military base) pit bulls and staffies (and mixes) are banned. I found an online discussion where they said a ban has been proposed on rotts and wolves (and mixes) also, and they went on to discuss breeds that they consider to be the most dangerous and it became a list. 
Chihuahuas (don't like kids)
Dachshunds (have no patience)
Toy Poodles (bite out of self-defense and playing with them is perceived as an attack)
Jack Russells (require early training to prevent biting and digging)
Pekingese (intolerant of strangers)

I would have thought that these "breed traits" were actually traits of an individual dog the person may have met, and are things that can often be prevented with socialisation and training. Am I wrong? These statements were presented as a fact by several people in the discussion.

And also the cocker spaniel was mentioned as having a genetic disease known as "rage syndrome" which "causes spontaneous violent action against not strangers, but actual family members". I have never heard of this. Can anyone tell me more about it? It sounds like something that can be attributed to any dog that appears to suddenly turn on its family, although I am sure the trigger in those cases (whether internal or external) could often be found if looked for. Is rage syndrome something completely spontaneous or does it have a trigger?


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Rage syndrom is a sezier (sp?) in which the dog's brain temporarily goes haywire and the dog becomes disoriented and sometimes shows highly aggressive movements. when the seizer is over they are normal again.


This is what I have read please correct if I am wrong (I can't spell that darn word grrr.)


----------



## GSDGAL (May 27, 2009)

jack russells lol, best kids dog ever. i have a pedigree little fella, he has never bit or dug once, and has never had any real training, apart from a few agility lessons...


----------



## animalcraker (Nov 9, 2006)

Rage Syndrome is a neurological disorder. It usually occurs in dogs that have seizure, but it's not too common. I don't belive it is secluded to just when they're having a seizure. I've only witnessed it once in a golden retriever. The pet had come in for a check up because it started having seizures then ~3 days later the ACO's had to bring it in for euth because the dog had just "flipped". This dog was not seizuring and it took 5 people with some clever use of catch poles and lassoing with leashes to muzzle it. Spaniels and Goldens seem to be the most prone to develop the syndrome.


----------



## spugs (May 4, 2009)

animalcraker said:


> Rage Syndrome is a neurological disorder. It usually occurs in dogs that have seizure, but it's not too common. I don't belive it is secluded to just when they're having a seizure. I've only witnessed it once in a golden retriever. The pet had come in for a check up because it started having seizures then ~3 days later the ACO's had to bring it in for euth because the dog had just "flipped". This dog was not seizuring and it took 5 people with some clever use of catch poles and lassoing with leashes to muzzle it. Spaniels and Goldens seem to be the most prone to develop the syndrome.


 My friends King Charles Cav had to be pts because of this. He would all of a sudden flip out and start attacking them then be normal again and not seen realise what he had just done. Ive read somewhere that its solid colour dogs that are more likely to have it but this was a belh (im not even going to try to spell it  )


----------



## Adustgerm (Jul 29, 2009)

Why ban dogs over a certain wieght limit? I own Saint Bernards. I believe that you can either have a dog, or you can't. Breed, weight limit, ect. has no bearing on whether or not it's a dog. Furthermore, if you think it's ok to put a ban on dogs over a certain wieght limit, aren't you also banning certain breeds too, ie Newfies, Saints, Pyrs, mastiffs?


----------



## RubyLove (May 4, 2009)

Adustgerm said:


> Why ban dogs over a certain wieght limit? I own Saint Bernards. I believe that you can either have a dog, or you can't. Breed, weight limit, ect. has no bearing on whether or not it's a dog. Furthermore, if you think it's ok to put a ban on dogs over a certain wieght limit, aren't you also banning certain breeds too, ie Newfies, Saints, Pyrs, mastiffs?


I meant in certain situations, such as in an apartment, I have no problem with a size-specific ban. I didn't mean in a city-wide ban, and I didn't mean that size has any relation to behavior. The bans I was referring to in my original post were based on the behavior of those breeds, which I disagree with because I believe the behavior of a dog is based on more than its breed. I personally have no problem with large dogs, just as I have no problem with any specific breed.

I believe there is a size limit on dogs in my section of housing and there is a limit on the number of pets (one dog, two cats or one dog+one cat, 50lbs weight limit) which I have no problem with because I don't think the apartments here are suitable for larger dogs. For example, a Saint Bernard would take up half the available floor space in my front room if it laid down  In the larger housing there is no weight limit.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 3, 2009)

Temperment is influenced by genetics and environment....

The battle of nature verses nurture.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Any breed of dog can have and do any of the problems mentioned by OP.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 3, 2009)

the reality is that certain breeds because of the breed generally tend to have different and specific behavioral characteristics..that is why we have different breeds.

Some breeds are generally bred with less focus on temperment and bidability and others more. One could certainly understand how in many generations one could breed in or out such general characteristics. Just as you could breed out the charactics of a herding dogs prey drive so could one breed for great temperment and biddabilty ....generally...


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

It is always hypocritical to me to protest the ban of one dog breed by pointing out others that 'should be banned more'.

There are breed traits of course and dogs will have different temperaments. A fila isn't going to ever be a golden retriever, that's a fact. It all comes down to responsible breeding and ownership. In the right hands, a fila can be maintained safely even with their extremely hard temperament. 

As for those specific breeds, rage is a problem in many spaniel breeds and some retrievers. It's a neurological disorder as mentioned. The other things mentioned imo are just generalizations of badly bred/trained/socialized dogs.


----------



## GroovyGroomer777 (Aug 21, 2008)

I have read many stories on groomer's forums about the rage syndrome. It is a very scary thing.... I've mostly heard about it in Springers.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Dachshunds? DANGEROUS? Sure they CAN be but I've met my fair share of them and not one bit me. Same goes for Chihuahuas, poodles, and JRTs...


----------



## ColoradoSooner (Mar 26, 2009)

Kayota said:


> Dachshunds? DANGEROUS? Sure they CAN be but I've met my fair share of them and not one bit me. Same goes for Chihuahuas, poodles, and JRTs...


And see...when I was a kid, my great-aunt had 2 dachshunds which were the meanest little dogs. We definitely did NOT mess with them...ha! But again, I think it comes down to training and management of your pets. My great-aunt let these dogs get away with pretty much everything. 

Like you said, any dog CAN be dangerous. That's why it doesn't work to ban certain breeds. That's trying to legislate the wrong end of the leash and doesn't solve anything. If people want change, they need to hold the OWNERS responsible rather than blaming the dogs.


----------



## Ludo the Monster (Jul 1, 2009)

I think breed bans are ridiculous and I think size bans are ridiculous. I live in a townhouse that (thankfully) does not have a size restriction on dogs (but they do restrict all large dogs must be 6+months of age). Had we not found this place I would have been homeless with my dog (long story but my landlord at my house "forgot" to use my rent to pay her mortgage and we were given two weeks' notice to get out -- by the bank). I live in a dog friendly city but NO ONE wanted a 9month old 70lb dog. No one. Most would not even meet him to see he is one big lover.

I think dogs should be evaluated on individual basis.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

There has been some study that suggests "Spaniel Rage" is the result of a chemical imbalance in the brains of affected animals. It's not that the off-the-hook aggression is unprovoked, but that the brain chemistry causes the aggression to jump the preliminary steps between the narrowed gaze and full blown attack.



> Many of the dogs studied by Dr. Reisner had abnormally low amounts of serotonin metabolites in their urine and cerebral spinal fluid. This suggested that the dominance aggression was associated with abnormally low levels of serotonin in the brain. This corresponded with findings in violent mental patients and prison inmates. Serotonin is one of the neurotransmitters, brain chemicals, that has a calming effect.
> 
> http://www.essfta.org/Health_Research/aggression.htm


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

ColoradoSooner said:


> And see...when I was a kid, my great-aunt had 2 dachshunds which were the meanest little dogs. We definitely did NOT mess with them...ha! But again, I think it comes down to training and management of your pets. My great-aunt let these dogs get away with pretty much everything.
> 
> Like you said, any dog CAN be dangerous. That's why it doesn't work to ban certain breeds. That's trying to legislate the wrong end of the leash and doesn't solve anything. If people want change, they need to hold the OWNERS responsible rather than blaming the dogs.


Exactly... I have two dachshunds and they wouldn't dream of biting anyone. Barking and growling.. yes, but never biting.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Ludo the Monster said:


> I think breed bans are ridiculous and I think size bans are ridiculous. I live in a townhouse that (thankfully) does not have a size restriction on dogs (but they do restrict all large dogs must be 6+months of age). Had we not found this place I would have been homeless with my dog (long story but my landlord at my house "forgot" to use my rent to pay her mortgage and we were given two weeks' notice to get out -- by the bank). I live in a dog friendly city but NO ONE wanted a 9month old 70lb dog. No one. Most would not even meet him to see he is one big lover.
> 
> I think dogs should be evaluated on individual basis.


When you rent though, you're at the mercy of your landlords. Since they own the place, they have every right to decide what is and isn't allowed there. Size bans in a whole town I believe are ridiculous.

My apartment has no size bans thankfully but my old one did. It's up to the owner's discretion.


----------



## Thracian (Dec 24, 2008)

I can't speak to the other breeds but can vouch for the volatile nature of toy poodles. Just look at these pictures.



















Those red eyes and bared teeth . . . plus he likes to lick my feet when I wear flip flops. I'm scared of him really.

Breed stereotypes are stupid.  And that list just shows how BSL may start with one or two breeds but can spread to dozens. Scary. You'll find "bad" dogs in every breed. Kind of like people.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

I just recently had someone approach me while walking my dogs and say "Do you know that Rottweiler's have killed more people then any other breed?" I wasn't really sure how to respond to that. I mean, I hear stuff like that often but the sincerity in the way she asked me took me back. I said "Actually, there is another breed that has done more damage but it isn't the breed of dog that is the problem, it is the type of owner that more often chooses these breeds."

It is public perception and fear that causes breed bans. People tend to always look for a quick fix to a problem. Pit Bulls and Rottweilers have become very popular with the unsavory dog owners. Hence the issues. If those same unsavory owners suddenly quit owning these breeds and moved on to another breed you would see a sudden shift in the breeds being targeted for bans. It is something that other breed fanciers should keep in mind. 

If a ban takes place based on size, I think many people would be shocked to see that Pit Bulls wouldn't be on that list. They are not huge dogs. The size ban would take out many breeds that are considered to be incredibly friendly, social dogs.

My opinion is that bans of any kind are the wrong approach to a very real problem. We simply need current laws to be upheld and owners to be held responsible for their dogs actions.

Thracian be careful, posting proof of dog fighting on a public forum could be a problem for you. ha ha ha Just kidding. My pups play like that too.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Inga said:


> "Do you know that Rottweiler's have killed more people then any other breed?"


I don't think that's even close to accurate, and Pit Bull types have only become a significant contributor to the problem since about the 1980s. A number of dog breeds have occupied the "problem breeds" list, over the years. Airedales and Great Danes had their time in the spotlight, back in the '30s. Danes were even banned from AKC shows for a time (IIRC).

I don't have official figures handy, but I believe Huskies and Husky mixes have stayed in the "top ten"--for a very long time--while the other "usual suspects" have moved on and off the list, due to breed fads.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I don't think that's even close to accurate, and Pit Bull types have only become a significant contributor to the problem since about the 1980s. A number of dog breeds have occupied the "problem breeds" list, over the years. Airedales and Great Danes had their time in the spotlight, back in the '30s. Danes were even banned from AKC shows for a time (IIRC).
> 
> I don't have official figures handy, but I believe Huskies and Husky mixes have stayed in the "top ten"--for a very long time--while the other "usual suspects" have moved on and off the list, due to breed fads.


There is a report that was put out by the CDC that states that Pit Bulls and Rottweiler's are at the top of the list. Rottweiler's were at an all time high between 1979-1998 The breed was supposedly responsible for 39 deaths.
Pit Bulls were supposedly responsible for 66 during that same time period. 
Husky's were 6 during that time. 
The thing about these statistics is that it was right during the breeds surge in popularity and now it is declining as the popularity declines. Other breeds that are now becoming more popular are seeing a huge increase in the bite statistics from those breeds. 
It is all about how many of a certain breed make it into homes that are less then responsible. I mean, accidents can happen to anyone but accidental bites don't generally end in death of the victim. To me, an accident is a small nip.

The CDC also put out a statement that they do NOT endorse breed specific legislation. It has been proved to be ineffective anyway.

I find it interesting though that people get crazy about dog bite fatalities and don't freak about bee bites/stings that result in a huge amount of fatalities each year. Not to mention car accidents, smoking related deaths etc....


----------



## LeRoymydog (Feb 25, 2007)

I was watching on Animal Planet (can't remember which show) and they said that a Rotts bite strength is twice that of a pitbulls. They said it has to do with the the size of their head. The bigger the jowls, the stronger the bite. And pits head aren't all that big. I wonder if they did the study on bulldogs, too. Their head and jowls are quite large.


----------



## Thracian (Dec 24, 2008)

> Thracian be careful, posting proof of dog fighting on a public forum could be a problem for you. ha ha ha Just kidding. My pups play like that too.


LOL! I used to call it fighting until I noticed the way a coworker was looking at me.  So now I call it wrestling, which is more accurate anyway. They're not fighting, I promise.


----------



## gracie_pie (Mar 20, 2009)

I can see how wolves could be banned, but thats because they are wild and the majority of people who own them or want to own them down understand how they work. Keep wildlife wild, you know what im sayin'? On a serious note, someone could really get hurt. The same thing could be said for pits, but pits are not wild animals. If people were educated before they got their pets, there would be an increadible decrease in pit issues. Of course you can never completely eliminate irresponsible owners. So I guess I can understand the ban of pit bulls, but I know of some places where your pit has to take an aggression test, and then take an obedience class (have papers and proof etc.), before you can legally own them and keep them in your home. It's a little crazy, but at least people dont have to leave their dog behind, and that's one less pit that ends up in a shelter.
Here are my vicious pitties...






I had to toughen 'em up alittle with those captions. By the way, they arn't really pits. They are just mixes. I don't even know if Brady has any pit in him (I think he is border collie/boston terrier), but 99% of the strangers I talk to assume that he's got some pit from his face. Ahhh, well...

I just found out something the other day that made me so completely upset. There is an increasing number of shelters that do not adopt out pits or pit mixes to the public. Therefore, any pits that came in had 3 days (in hopes that their owners would come and retrieve them) before they were put down. I saw over 200 pit bulls, half of them still puppies, that were put down this past year, in one pound. It's their way of 'decreasing the overpopulation of pits'. I personally think that the breeding of pits should be illegal, at least untill we can get rid of pounds with these rules. You want a pit? Go friggen adopt one...


----------



## gracie_pie (Mar 20, 2009)

Thracian said:


> LOL! I used to call it fighting until I noticed the way a coworker was looking at me.  So now I call it wrestling, which is more accurate anyway. They're not fighting, I promise.


Lol, I know what you mean! I used to talk about my dogs fighting all the time...









Considering their looks, it wasn't such a good idea . I mean, just look at Gracie, she is literally glowing with ferociousness.​


----------



## GSDGAL (May 27, 2009)

But look at this JRT's teeth, he could swallow a baby whole...








[/IMG]


----------



## RubyLove (May 4, 2009)

GSDGAL said:


> But look at this JRT's teeth, he could swallow a baby whole...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I will definitely be showing that picture and insisting that JRT's are also banned here. I don't know how they have been permitted for so long when they are obviously so dangerous.




Looks like he's grinning


----------



## GSDGAL (May 27, 2009)

he was grinning, he does that a lot when i take the camera out, he's a funny little man


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

You think that JRT is bad, you haven't seen this Chihuahua mix:









She could swallow a preteen!









One of her many victims...

lol


----------



## Pepper (Jan 27, 2008)

> and they said that a Rotts bite strength is twice that of a pitbulls



This is semi true and semi not true, only one test has been done, by Brady Barr, on the PSI of bite strength with dogs, he tested a pitty, a rottie, and a GSD. The rottie was douple the strength of the pitty, but that can't be solid evidence, as they only tested 3 dogs, not multiple dogs of the same breed..as in, it could have just been a massive rottie, or a really small pitty.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

RubyLove said:


> I have always been of the opinion that the temperament and behavior of a dog is based on the individual animal, not its breed. Because of this I don't see why certain breeds are banned and I feel that if somewhere is going to have a ban it should be based on the size of the animal, e.g. no dogs over 50lbs, not it's breed.
> 
> Where I live (military base) pit bulls and staffies (and mixes) are banned. I found an online discussion where they said a ban has been proposed on rotts and wolves (and mixes) also, and they went on to discuss breeds that they consider to be the most dangerous and it became a list.
> Chihuahuas (don't like kids)
> ...


This is a false belief. Individual temperament is there, even in dogs of the same breed, but the breed they are (the breeding and genetics in place by such) go into making their temperament, as well as other things such as quirks, likes/dislikes, drive, personality, ect. 

This is how/why we have specific breeds of a certain temperament type. They have been selectively bred for a temperament and and physical attributes that will meet a certain need. This is especially true in working breeds (though companion breeds also have varied temperaments from breed to breed as there is still a different of selective breed even if they were created/bred for being pets). 

There are even similar breeds which can have a different temperament and personality, it is not to do with an individual GSD happening to be different then an individual Malinois, it has to do with them being bred for a different temperament that developed over time. 

Environment, socialization, training and handling all play their roles, some more then others within individual dogs and differing breeds. 

By standard and what is considered to be the appropriate temperament by most an APBT should be friendly and should not show HA. A high prey drive is completely acceptable however, even incidence of DA can be considered normal (though not all will develop it, nor do all have a high prey drive) The opposite is true of a Caucasian Ovcharka which should have a high defense drive and be "HA" by nature, to not be such is considered a fault in temperament, again contrarily they should not be prey driven.

This temperament isn't something that you train in, it isn't something that the individual dog happens to have. It occurs via genetics. You can nurture the nature, in any individual dog this is typically what you are doing you are either working with it or against it in training. Some traits are there simply because of the fact that they are a dog and others is due to their breed. 

I don't like to speak in absolute's but all dogs simply because they are dogs have the possibility of being aggressive whether it is actually being an "aggressive dog" or having a single incidence of showing aggression. What type/reason varies from dog to dog (and can be seen as typical from breed to breed). What triggers aggression in one dog might not in another though something else in another might trigger it, this is backed by genetics. There is some new studies, not really based on aggression but dog behaviors being controlled genetically as the triggers for the behavior can be genetic to a dog. Some dogs do their lives without showing aggression for any reason but that doesn't mean they don't have the ability to do so. There are also triggers caused by environment. There could be a reason aggression is shown like a dog that was attacked by another dog becomes reactive, the sight of another dog triggers their aggression. Partially since this varies from dog to dog this can be influenced by their genetics too, as some are attacked without any ill effects. 



Pepper said:


> This is semi true and semi not true, only one test has been done, by Brady Barr, on the PSI of bite strength with dogs, he tested a pitty, a rottie, and a GSD. The rottie was douple the strength of the pitty, but that can't be solid evidence, as they only tested 3 dogs, not multiple dogs of the same breed..as in, it could have just been a massive rottie, or a really small pitty.


I do think it would be very interesting if many dogs from the same breeds were tested to see what each comes up at and what the average is. 

Judging from the looks of the dogs the Pit was nor small nor was the Rottie massive. The Pit looked to be about 50lbs, although the Rott was likely double the Pit's weight, maybe a little more. 

That in itself is not exactly relevant though. Size that is. As there are smaller APBTs that bite harder, break bones, ect then larger APBTs which barely leave marks or puncture the skin though they can do some internal/tissue damage from the general pressure. That is just within the the APBT 35lbs vs a 60lbs where you can see the difference in damage they do. Size can perhaps play some relevance from breed to breed but I don't think it is cut and dry. A dog bites hard because they are A. capable physically of doing so and B. because they want to. Some have a lot of jaw strength through whatever internal musculature that we can not see on the outside and "want to" use it as they seem to use it to their full capacity. Others might seem to have the will but just can't bite as hard. Some possible have the physically capability but bite with inhibition, though in APBTs bite inhibition when fighting another dog doesn't seem to be their strong point. If they are trying to get away and not really fight back it is easier to conclude that their body is probably inhibited. 

Which is just another reason why I think multiple breeds would be more accurate. They tested other breeds and it also seemed to show that size = more bite pressure but I think it could be deceiving in the long run. We can't really know thought without multi test. Because of such a varied size range in Pits they'd also need to test Pits from like 30-70lbs and see where they end up vs other larger/smaller breeds.


----------



## ACampbell (Oct 7, 2007)

RubyLove said:


> I have always been of the opinion that the temperament and behavior of a dog is based on the individual animal, not its breed. Because of this I don't see why certain breeds are banned and I feel that if somewhere is going to have a ban it should be based on the size of the animal, e.g. no dogs over 50lbs, not it's breed.
> 
> Where I live (military base) pit bulls and staffies (and mixes) are banned. I found an online discussion where they said a ban has been proposed on rotts and wolves (and mixes) also, and they went on to discuss breeds that they consider to be the most dangerous and it became a list.
> Chihuahuas (don't like kids)
> ...


Hiya from Fort Carson, CO!
Just moved here from Fort Drum, NY and they have instituted such a ban on post...APBTs, Staffordshires, Dobermans, Rottweilers, wolf hybrids, and Chows were all banned from up there. Fort Hood has banned APBT's at the least, maybe more...Fort Carson has a ban on pitbulls and maybe some other breeds (not sure, I don't live on post anymore because of it) and I"m told it's going army wide.
So if you have any breeds that they consider "dangerous" consider living off-post permanently because of it. As for your other questions, I'm not really sure and glad others have chimed in.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

Kayota said:


> Dachshunds? DANGEROUS? Sure they CAN be but I've met my fair share of them and not one bit me. Same goes for Chihuahuas, poodles, and JRTs...


I have been bitten by many doxies. I love the nice ones but I meet far more HA doxies than nice. 

So far I've had about tied for HA dachshunds and labs. 

Lots of fearful chis too. Usually fairly aggressive with people but I've yet to be bitten by one.


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

Inga said:


> I just recently had someone approach me while walking my dogs and say "Do you know that Rottweiler's have killed more people then any other breed?" I wasn't really sure how to respond to that. I mean, I hear stuff like that often but the sincerity in the way she asked me took me back. I said "Actually, there is another breed that has done more damage but it isn't the breed of dog that is the problem, it is the type of owner that more often chooses these breeds."


For the last ten years that the CDC kept track of bite fatalities by breed, rottweilers did have the highest number. But I doubt that this person was actually referencing statistics; she was probably just saying whatever she heard somewhere, which speaks to her own biases. 

I don't think you needed to tell her that it's actually another breed -- I mean, doesn't that just point the finger elsewhere? But I'm glad you told her that it's the owner demographics that count, not the breed.

ETA: I am so glad that my state has a statewide ban on BSL! I hope someday that's true of the whole country.

ETA much later: When I wrote this I had only read page one and I didn't realize there were any more posts. So sorry if I ignored what other people had written or repeated stuff.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

canteloupe said:


> For the last ten years that the CDC kept track of bite fatalities by breed, rottweilers did have the highest number. But I doubt that this person was actually referencing statistics; she was probably just saying whatever she heard somewhere, which speaks to her own biases.
> 
> I don't think you needed to tell her that it's actually another breed -- I mean, doesn't that just point the finger elsewhere? But I'm glad you told her that it's the owner demographics that count, not the breed.
> 
> ETA: I am so glad that my state has a statewide ban on BSL! I hope someday that's true of the whole country.


Really what were the last 10yrs? The latest I can ever find is up to 1998 which shows Pit Bulls as having the highest number. Rottweilers 2nd to them. Followed by the GSD. 

Can you hook me up with the info. 

If the statewide ban is enforced then that is great. If it's not like in some other states where they still propose and even pass bans with a law in place that prohibits them it's useless. I was unaware that PA was one of the states but it is good to know.


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

I'm using the same CDC data. After 1998 they stopped publishing this information because they believed that it was inaccurate and was being misused. The CDC is officially opposed to BSL, which speaks volumes about its scientific viability. I was saying that in the last ten years (89-98) the rottweilers had the highest number, so that _could_ be used against them. But I certainly don't think it should be.

I think a really, really important thing to take into consideration is that in all their data they say "pit bull-type" -- not pit bull. This includes a wide array of dog breeds and breed mixes. For this reason, I don't think that anyone should use this CDC data to say that pit bulls have the highest number, for any time period.

(Of course, dog savvy people might argue that "pit bull-type" does not include non-pit bulls like mastiffs and various bulldogs and many other breeds -- but speak for yourself. To the American public, which includes the police, reporters, and victims of dog attacks, many non-APBTs are "pit bull-types.")

ETA: I see that Inga already mentioned the CDC's position. But I think it's important to add to her post what I said about their pit bull stats actually being "pit bull-type" stats. That really changes things.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

The best source explaining the fallacy of banning 'dog breeds' rather than penalizing 'bad dog owners' is _The Pit Bull Placebo._ You can read the entire thing online. 

The author studied 100 years worth of media accounts of dog attacks and looked at which breeds were the most popular at those times, and what the most common functions those breed commonly had (guarding, intimidation, etc), and how those factors influenced which breeds were thought to be the most 'dangeous' at the time. Basically, the conclusion was that media perception is not an accurate statement of anything other than which breeds are the most popular with unsavory-type owners, and the stereotyped 'bad breed' actually shifts every 25-30 years or so. It's very educational, and I think every lawmaker that is trying to pass BSL should be emailed a copy.


----------



## RubyLove (May 4, 2009)

Pai said:


> The best source explaining the fallacy of banning 'dog breeds' rather than penalizing 'bad dog owners' is _The Pit Bull Placebo._ You can read the entire thing online.


I already have a copy of that on my computer, I have been waiting to either find the time to read it on the computer screen (my usual reading time is either in the bath, when I am about to go to sleep or when my husband is using the computer) or find somewhere to print out that much for free. It looks really interesting, I just want to be able to give it proper attention.



ACampbell said:


> Hiya from Fort Carson, CO!
> Just moved here from Fort Drum, NY and they have instituted such a ban on post...APBTs, Staffordshires, Dobermans, Rottweilers, wolf hybrids, and Chows were all banned from up there. Fort Hood has banned APBT's at the least, maybe more...Fort Carson has a ban on pitbulls and maybe some other breeds (not sure, I don't live on post anymore because of it) and I"m told it's going army wide.
> So if you have any breeds that they consider "dangerous" consider living off-post permanently because of it. As for your other questions, I'm not really sure and glad others have chimed in.


This is the first time I have lived on a base and I have been more surprised at peoples reactions to the restrictions than the restrictions themselves. There was apparently an outcry from someone because a pit puppy was taken into the vet on base, although they are only restricted in housing, not on the base itself... after all, people with pets living off-base still need to visit the vet. They claimed the vet should have refused to treat it, because it was a pit, and perhaps the vet was incompetent and didn't know it was a pit. And there are also the people who look for people to report to pmo for having a pit or pit mix (and how many times is it really a boxer or bulldog or whatever else...) or for having more than two pets. And there are always crys for more breeds to be banned.


----------



## ACampbell (Oct 7, 2007)

RubyLove said:


> This is the first time I have lived on a base and I have been more surprised at peoples reactions to the restrictions than the restrictions themselves. There was apparently an outcry from someone because a pit puppy was taken into the vet on base, although they are only restricted in housing, not on the base itself... after all, people with pets living off-base still need to visit the vet. They claimed the vet should have refused to treat it, because it was a pit, and perhaps the vet was incompetent and didn't know it was a pit. And there are also the people who look for people to report to pmo for having a pit or pit mix (and how many times is it really a boxer or bulldog or whatever else...) or for having more than two pets. And there are always crys for more breeds to be banned.


That's pretty lame. I still take my dogs to the on-post vet...I talked specifically to lodging as well...it's only in privatized-housing that they are banned...so if you stay at lodging at Fort Carson, you're fine with your pitbull - that was exactly what they told me because I asked about the ban and they said "that only matters for housing, we're not housing and not run by them so yes you can bring your dog".
People REALLY need to get a grip! When you make an appt with the on-post vet they ask you what dog you're bringing and they usually have record of that dogs name, breed, sex etc. So the person making the appt knows what kind of dog it is, and honestly, there is not a ban from taking them on-post for medical treatment nor if you are to stay in lodging...only if you stay in housing. (This is good information to know, but if you intend on staying in lodging call first to assure they are not banned from lodging as well - Fort Carson they are not, Fort Drum does not have rooms that accommodate dogs, just FYI - I worked at lodging at Fort Huachuca and they have pet rooms so they are worth asking as well.)


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I don't like to speak in absolute's but all dogs simply because they are dogs have the possibility of being aggressive whether it is actually being an "aggressive dog" or having a single incidence of showing aggression.


That's what I'm agreeing with 100%. As a long time dog business person I have been bitten and threatened by many different breeds etc. As I have stated before if they have teeth they can bite. I could never understand the panic that accompanies dog bites. A carpenter hits his thumb with a hammer life goes on. A person gets a single dog bite/snap etc and it's the end of the world. 2 yrs ago I fell off ladder and snapped a wrist and 2 ribs, I did have the ladder PTSed. Stuff just happens dogs or life in general..


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

The only cases of rage I have encountered were all Springer Spaniels (English, not Welsh) and in all cases the dog did serious damage to a person, usually the primary care giver, without warning. 

I don't think it is cause to ban Springers, but it is certainly cause for breeders to be very careful. 

I own a "Dangerous Dog" myself, so I am very against breed bans.

Here's my dangerous dog:


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

wvasko said:


> A carpenter hits his thumb with a hammer life goes on. A person gets a single dog bite/snap etc and it's the end of the world.


Things haven't really changed all that much since Salem Mass., 1692, when the community got all worked up about witchcraft. Pit Bulls are merely the boogeyman du jour.


----------



## BrittanyG (May 27, 2009)




----------

