It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: schuyler
You folks who are apologists for your beloved pit bulls need to be aware of the statistics. In a major longitudinal study covering 1982 to 2006, nearly 24 years, it clearly shows that dangerous dogs such as "pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings." In this study a cocker spaniel was responsible for one dog bite for the entire 24 years. Pit bull terriers, on the other hand, were responsible for 1,110, including 104 deaths. When are you pit bull apologists going to wake up and realize your macho tough dogs are dangerous to the rest of the population? Those interested in researching this issue should see www.dogbitelaw.com... and familiarize yourselves with the statistics. Nobody is 'singling out' pit bulls unfairly. They simply cause more damage. To defend these dogs in the face of this evidence is illogical and irresponsible. I just hope pit bull owners carry a lot of insurance.
originally posted by: CranialSponge
Banning irresponsible pit bull owners would make more sense.
PIT BULLS IN NEW ZEALAND – 18% OF THE ATTACKS , LESS THEN 2% OF THE DOG POPULATION
However, the problem of dangerous dogs will not be remedied by the “quick fix” of breed-specific laws—or, as they should truly be called, breed-discriminatory laws.
Are Breed-Specific Laws Effective?
There is no evidence that breed-specific laws make communities safer for people or companion animals. Following a thorough study of human fatalities resulting from dog bites, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) decided to strongly oppose BSL. The CDC cited, among other problems, the inaccuracy of dog bite data and the difficulty in identifying dog breeds (especially true of mixed-breed dogs). Breed-specific laws are also costly and difficult to enforce.
What Are the Consequences of Breed-Specific Laws?
BSL carries a host of negative and wholly unintended consequences:
⋄ Dogs Suffer. Rather than give up beloved pets, owners of highly regulated or banned breeds often attempt to avoid detection by restricting their dogs’ outdoor exercise and socialization—forgoing licensing, microchipping and proper veterinary care, and avoiding spay/neuter surgery and essential vaccinations. Such actions can have a negative impact on both the mental and physical health of these dogs.
In addition, breed-specific laws can create a climate where it is nearly impossible for residents to adopt and live with such a breed—virtually ensuring destruction of otherwise adoptable dogs by shelters and humane societies.
⋄ Owners Suffer. Responsible owners of entirely friendly, properly supervised and well-socialized dogs who happen to fall within the regulated breed are required to comply with local breed bans and regulations. This can lead to housing issues, legal fees or even relinquishment of the animal.
⋄Public Safety Suffers. Breed-specific laws have a tendency to compromise rather than enhance public safety. When animal control resources are used to regulate or ban a certain breed, the focus is shifted away from effective enforcement of laws that have the best chances of making communities safer: dog license laws, leash laws, anti-animal fighting laws, anti-tethering laws, laws facilitating spaying and neutering and laws that require all owners to control their dogs, regardless of breed. Additionally, guardians of banned breeds may be deterred from seeking routine veterinary care, which can lead to outbreaks of rabies and other diseases that endanger communities.