Breed-specific legislation

[ModernArtist25]

Have you all heard Montreal about to pass this law? What's your opinion on this?

http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/pets/news/a40652/montreal-pit-bull-ban/

 

[StringJunky]

Have you all heard Montreal about to pass this law? What's your opinion on this?

http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/pets/news/a40652/montreal-pit-bull-ban/

 

Ignorant arseholes, quite frankly. . Staffordshires are people-loving dogs by default; they are even called "Nanny dogs" because of their generally good reputation with children; they have, on average, a high tolerance for rough play with them by children relative to other breeds. If there's any dog I had to put trust in and the least likely to snap or bite, it's them. It's people that train them to be nasty. I've known loads of them and only one or two was a bit grumpy and snappy but that was down to the owner. It's the little breeds that tend towards nasty more often in my experience.

Edited September 30, 2016 by StringJunky

[John Cuthber]

"'s people that train them to be nasty. I've known loads of them and only one or two was a bit grumpy and snappy but that was down to the owner."

 

It is possible to ban some dogs and not possible to ban stupidity.

Which should they try to do?

[StringJunky]

"'s people that train them to be nasty. I've known loads of them and only one or two was a bit grumpy and snappy but that was down to the owner."

 

It is possible to ban some dogs and not possible to ban stupidity.

Which should they try to do?

Come down harder the stupid ones. You created a dichotomy where there needn't be one.

Edited October 1, 2016 by StringJunky

[John Cuthber]

You don't know they are stupid until it's too late.

[Delta1212]

"'s people that train them to be nasty. I've known loads of them and only one or two was a bit grumpy and snappy but that was down to the owner."

 

It is possible to ban some dogs and not possible to ban stupidity.

Which should they try to do?

By that logic, there are an awful lot of things that should be banned because they are dangerous in the hands of morons.

[John Cuthber]

By that logic, there are an awful lot of things that should be banned because they are dangerous in the hands of morons.

Not really.

There's the other tacit criterion but I thought it was too obvious to mention.

Nobody needs a staffy.

[zapatos]

You make it sound like stupid people will only be able to make Staffordshires mean, while other breeds will be immune to their stupidity.

 

Stupid people can also make tea kettles dangerous. Perhaps we should ban tea kettles. After all, nobody needs a tea kettle.

[John Cuthber]

Feel free to make a chihuahua as dangerous as you like.

There really is a difference.

[Endy0816]

Still bite and worse everyone babies them. Presently having trouble with neighbors letting their chihuahua wander and getting into fights with our larger dog.

 

Poor dog is neither being disciplined nor restrained :/

[StringJunky]

Still bite and worse everyone babies them. Presently having trouble with neighbors letting their chihuahua wander and getting into fights with our larger dog.

 

Poor dog is neither being disciplined nor restrained :/

It's got Little Dog Syndrome like some men of short stature have Little Man Syndrome; both feel the need to assert themselves more aggressively than those of average or greater size. If some of the little breeds were big they'd be downright dangerous and make pitbulls look soft in comparison.

[John Cuthber]

I'm glad to see they stopped calling it Napoleon syndrome.

Now all they need to do is realise that it probably doesn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_complex

 

"If some of the little breeds were big they'd be downright dangerous and make pitbulls look soft in comparison. "
​Yes, but the point is that they are not big and they are not so dangerous.

[Endy0816]

We are mostly concerned about the dogs fighting and one or both ending up injured/infected.

 

Any size dog needs their owners to teach it how to behave.

 

We're presently going after the owners via eviction, so at least not risking calling animal control. Would love a better option right now though.

[Arete]

So we have 2 Staffordshire bull terriers, and an 18 month old human, When my son was coming along I tried to thoroughly research the issue in a quantitative manner, with an open mind. What I discovered was that:

 

a) "Pit bull" is an ambiguous term which refers to a suite of breeds known as "bully breeds" which range from our 35 pound dogs, up to 150 pound bull mastiffs -arguably also including Boston terriers and boxers. Therefore the first issue with a "pit bull" ban is that it is ambiguous as to what exactly a pit bull is.

b) Bully breeds do not have more propensity to attack than other breeds, in fact the American Staffordshire terrier scores better in the AKC temperament test than the Labrador.

c) Bully breeds don't generate any more bite force than breeds of similar size.

d) HOWEVER "pit bulls" are over-represented in fatal dog attacks .

 

So there appears to be a conundrum - pit breeds don't actually have the propensity or capacity to do more damage than similarly sized breeds, but appear to do so anyway. One possible explanation is that people are really terrible at visually identifying dog breeds - getting it incorrect over 85% of the time.

 

That said ANY dog is capable of attacking and larger dogs are more likely to cause injury. Fatal dog attacks are exceedingly rare, making up 0.0007% of dog attacks. Statistically, bathtubs and ladders kill far more people than pit bulls, or any other dog breed.

 

Anecdotally, here's Huxley and Wallace - our two:

Edited October 2, 2016 by Arete

[John Cuthber]

It's true that the term is ambiguous- it applies to a variety of dogs.

However the origin of the term is clear enough; pit bulls were bred to fight in bull pits.

I'm puzzled by the claims that these dogs are not naturally aggressive- given that we bred them to be so.

 

I'm also puzzled how come an animal which is claimed to be relatively non- aggressive is, in fact, disproportionately widely involved in acts of aggression. An obvious answer would be that there are some arseholes out there who encourage the dogs to attack- that seems quite a probable explanation for at least part of the disproportionality.

But it just brings us back to my earlier point. You can't legally proscribe being an arsehole.

 

Her's another thought for you; nobody needs a dog "designed" for bull baiting these days. Yet they seem very popular with some sections of the community.

Does a dog with the misfortune to be owned by one of those neanderthals who want it to fight have a reasonable expectation of being looked after properly?

 

Most of the suffering is not born by humans- but by the pitbulls who end up forced into fights and only kept as misguided status symbols.

Are we being fair on them?

Edited October 2, 2016 by John Cuthber

[StringJunky]

So we have 2 Staffordshire bull terriers, and an 18 month old human, When my son was coming along I tried to thoroughly research the issue in a quantitative manner, with an open mind. What I discovered was that:

 

a) "Pit bull" is an ambiguous term which refers to a suite of breeds known as "bully breeds" which range from our 35 pound dogs, up to 150 pound bull mastiffs -arguably also including Boston terriers and boxers. Therefore the first issue with a "pit bull" ban is that it is ambiguous as to what exactly a pit bull is.

b) Bully breeds do not have more propensity to attack than other breeds, in fact the American Staffordshire terrier scores better in the AKC temperament test than the Labrador.

c) Bully breeds don't generate any more bite force than breeds of similar size.

d) HOWEVER "pit bulls" are over-represented in fatal dog attacks .

 

So there appears to be a conundrum - pit breeds don't actually have the propensity or capacity to do more damage than similarly sized breeds, but appear to do so anyway. One possible explanation is that people are really terrible at visually identifying dog breeds - getting it incorrect over 85% of the time.

 

That said ANY dog is capable of attacking and larger dogs are more likely to cause injury. Fatal dog attacks are exceedingly rare, making up 0.0007% of dog attacks. Statistically, bathtubs and ladders kill far more people than pit bulls, or any other dog breed.

 

Anecdotally, here's Huxley and Wallace - our two:

You can just see the tension in their muscles poised to attack.

 

 

 

Temperament

Although individual differences in personality exist, common traits exist throughout the Staffords. Due to its breeding, the modern dog is known for its character of indomitable courage, high intelligence, and tenacity. This, coupled with its affection for its friends, and children in particular, its off-duty quietness and trustworthy stability, makes it a foremost all-purpose dog.

It has been said that "No breed is more loving with its family"

The breed is naturally muscular and may appear intimidating; however, because of their natural fondness for people, most Staffords are temperamentally ill-suited for guard or attack-dog training.

The Staffordshire Bull Terrier appeared in the top 10 breeds most suitable for families and especially children in a report researched and published by Southampton University in 1996[5]. This breed is highly intelligent, eager to please and very people friendly. It adapts readily to most situations making it the foremost all purpose dog. Staffordshire Bull Terrier puppies are very easy to house train

http://www.thestaffordshirebullterrier.co.uk/history.htm

 

 

Her's another thought for you; nobody needs a dog "designed" for bull baiting these days. Yet they seem very popular with some sections of the community.

No, a very large section of the normal UK dog owning community, not just yobs:

 

 

Breeds tagged most frequently by Petlog and Animalcare across whole of the UK in past decade:

 

Labrador Retriever 509,500.

Jack Russell Terrier 376,300.

Staffordshire Bull Terrier 356,000.

Border Collie 233,700.

Cocker Spaniel 224,400.

English Springer Spaniel 194,700.

German Shepherd 158,900.

Yorkshire Terrier 144,800.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27690167

Edited October 2, 2016 by StringJunky

[Delta1212]

Not really.

There's the other tacit criterion but I thought it was too obvious to mention.

Nobody needs a staffy.

No one, possibly excepting certain professionals, actually "needs" power tools either. Or backyard propane grills, or recreational aircraft or laser pointers or compound bows or any number of the other near limitless amount of non-essential things that pose a danger to yourself or others if you are an idiot or an asshole who insists on using them irresponsibly.

[Arete]

I'm puzzled by the claims that these dogs are not naturally aggressive- given that we bred them to be so.

 

Evolutionary just so stories should generally be considered suspect until causation is verified.

 

In this case, we have data - pretty good data given the sample size of 870 pitbulls (of which 86.8% passed the test) that they do not have an abnormally aggressive temperament (compare dobermans (n=1,655 78.5%) and golden retrievers (n= 785, 85.2%). Therefore the argument that they have been (successfully) bred to be "naturally" more aggressive than other breeds doesn't hold up to empirical testing.

[StringJunky]

 

Evolutionary just so stories should generally be considered suspect until causation is verified.

 

In this case, we have data - pretty good data given the sample size of 870 pitbulls (of which 86.8% passed the test) that they do not have an abnormally aggressive temperament (compare dobermans (n=1,655 78.5%) and golden retrievers (n= 785, 85.2%). Therefore the argument that they have been (successfully) bred to be "naturally" more aggressive than other breeds doesn't hold up to empirical testing.

Fighting dogs were bred to act aggressively to other dogs not people; they had to be handled so a dog that wasn't comfortable in human company had a bad trait.

[Daecon]

My mum has a Staffordshire, apparently she's a rescue dog and really friendly and well-tempered. I still find myself subconsciously flinching when I'm petting her and she makes a sudden move. I guess I'm just not a dog person.

[MigL]

A dog's temperament is influenced much more by training than breeding.

But 'pit-bulls' have gained a 'reputation, and now every 'arsehole' and 'yob' ( you Brits are ruining the English language ) wants one to prove how 'tough' they are. They are the guard dog of choice for most drug dealers and other low-lives here in Canada.

I don't think those types of people are training them to be gentle and play with babies.

 

But what do I know, I'm a cat person.

[StringJunky]

A dog's temperament is influenced much more by training than breeding.

You stick with your cats. Temperament can be be messed up but staffs are amiable by default, mostly. They wouldn't have the overall friendly reputation if it to be trained into them.

[John Cuthber]

My mum has a Staffordshire, apparently she's a rescue dog

Does that make you a sonofabitch?

 

I'm just waiting to this thread to turn into a photocopy of the "guns" debate.

[Arete]

I'm just waiting to this thread to turn into a photocopy of the "guns" debate.

 

I don't think that it's a very sensible comparison:

 

1) Around 40% of US households have guns, and there are around 34,000 gun related deaths in the US each year. Around 37% of US households own a dog, and there are 20-30 dog related fatalities per year (of which about 30% are caused by pit breeds) The CDC concludes that the number is too small to make robust, empirical statements about the danger of specific breeds.

 

To put that into context, around 350 Americans drown in bathtubs each year, 100 die of honey bee stings and 400 are killed by space heaters. In the grand scheme of things, dogs of any breed - including pit bulls are very safe. the same thing can obviously not be said about firearms.

 

2) Again the ambiguity surrounding what a pitbull is, and the inclusion of everything from 150 pound dog breeds through to 30 pound breeds make breed specific statistical comparisons apples to oranges comparisons. If you combine German Shepards, rottweilers, dobermans and dachshunds together, they now become the most dangerous breed. If gun bans were the comparison we'd be lumping in water pistols and bb guns with AR15's.

 

3) People can't identify mixed breed dogs with any accuracy. As previously cited, visual identification is incorrect in 85% of cases. Therefore many dogs involved in attacks that are visually confirmed as being pitbull type dogs are in all likelihood, not. If someone has been shot it is usually fairly unequivocal that a gun was involved.

 

Breed specific legislation is like shark nets at the beach - the fear of being killed vastly outweighs the actual statistical probability of being killed, and the resultant "measures" to prevent statistically anomalous events are usually of limited effectiveness, but make people feel better.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Arete

[John Cuthber]

 

I don't think that it's a very sensible comparison:

 

 

That depends on whether you take the legislation sensu strictu or more generally as being about the restriction of dangerous dogs.

 

Often bought to show off.

Not really needed.

Likely to harm kids and others.

Provides illusion of security

Main argument in favour boils down to "but I like them".

and so on.

We won't get the wrangling about whether the 2nd amendment applied to automatics ; instead we get it about what's a pit-bull.