Ontario Pit Bull Ban Begins Today!!!

Good news for fellow suffers of ignorant pet owners!!!

Please remember to have your lethal weapons ...er... I mean little doggies spayed or neutered, please...


Pit bull owners remain defiant as a pit bull ban comes into effect across Ontario today -- the first such province-wide ban in Canada.

Pit bull owners now have 60 days to get their animals spayed or neutered, and must muzzle and leash them in public.

People will not be able to own, breed, import, transfer or purchase pit bulls, although they can still adopt them for a limited time.

Those violating the rules can end up with their pets seized and euthanized, while they could face finds of up to $10,000 or even jail time.

More at:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1125315169569_7/?hub=Canada

They should be next to be banned, because it couldn't have been the owner's fault.

esp pit bulls. If had a gun I would kill every one I saw. It's about time something was done about the evil fucking beasts!

Now THAT was a rational response if I've ever heard one. :sarcasm:

...:eyes:

U joker!!

Does it still get banned?

mikey_the_rat

Glad to see it!

done the same thing.

It's a shame the few who are irresponsible have ruined it for so many, but there is no other choice. The public must be protected.

Oh the dramatics. What, are the dogs carrying TB or something? :shrug:

You should enact a ban on stupid people...they're the ones who create killing machines.

"It's a shame the few who are irresponsible have ruined it for so many..."

So, do you support the racial profiling of Muslims then? I mean, of course we all know that not all Muslims want to kill Americans, but the few who have killed Americans are making it necessary to "protect the public" right? Maybe we should ban all Muslims from the US...or from airports/federal buildings? Would you support that?

I mean, only a few muslims attacked the US, but they must all be stopped! :scarasm:

Denver confiscated them I think..

Luckily, the owner was able to wrestle the girl out of it's jaws before it hit her jugular vein. She had 18 stitches, bruises, and emotional trauma. Seems the owners of the dog lived next door tot he girl, and was known by them to be vicious and was not neutered (which would have helped). He was on a 10 foot leash being led inside and lunged toward the little girl in the next door yard.. The owners were not able to hold him back and he just went for her throat.

You know, all dog breeds can become vicious. The point of pit bulls, unfortunately, is that they are bred for aggressiveness, just as other breeds are bred for hunting, herding, companionship. If some people here who are bent on defending the pitt bulls don't understand, the way you end up with dogs that are a problem as a group is that each time a breeder creates new litters they choose male and female parents with the traits they desire, and combine them. If you want smaller dogs, you take the smallest male and female, if you want aggressive dogs.. you breed the two most aggressive, and you continue on the down the line. There have been too many greedy breeders who are making money breeding pit bulls for dog fighting, and also ignorant people who have no business breeding dogs like that. The fact about those dogs is they ARE genetically predisposed to aggressiveness, they have been physically optimized through breeding, for fighting.

Yes.. there are nice pit bulls, my roomate had one. But.. there are far too many bad ones... AND when a spaniel or poodle bites someone, they bite. When a pit bull goes aggressive they go for a kill and their jaws are so powerful, often it takes even more damage to rescue the victim. Unfortunately drug people have adopted pit bulls as their security system, so that further hurts the breed, as they are prized for their aggressiveness to protect money, guns, and drugs.

I am a big time dog lover. I can just see the reality of that breed, and I can see how it's been further destroyed by lowlife breeders who care nothing for the dogs future.

The misuse of the breed is tragic. Owners who train and breed aggressiveness should be put in the pit (so to speak). Still I can not agree with eliminating the breed, which is what would happen if this approach is widely adopted.

I do know how dangerous an aggressive attack dog can be, having been forced to kill one in self defense some time back.

who was one of the sweetest animals in the world. And that's because she and my brother in law trained her and raised her that way. She was very good with everybody, including children. I am not disputing the fact that pit bulls can and do kill people, but I think it is mostly because the owners trained them that way, not the way my sister's dog was trained.

I can never tell from the reports...seriously there are a great deal many dogs included under the heading pitbull. I've owned some in the past, keep an airedale now....I've never had problems with them or any other dog.

There are just too many irresponsible owners out there. I'm tired of reading stories about innocent little kids getting scarred for life by these dogs.

It is an interesting situation. Are there any anti-gun people who disagree with the pit bull ban? I think it would be a futile argument to say you are pro-gun control but against this pit-bull ban. Real hypocrisy.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0534,shaftel,67093,5.h...

Granted, the real problem is fools such as this one and a lack of laws to deal with these sadists, but the breeding of pit bulls is so out of control right now that I believe a moratorium is in order. In our town every drug dealer around has a pack of pit bulls and there is also dog fighting.

The problem is not the dog breed it is the people who own then. The very same people will turn to other dogs and make them the same way. Dobermans, Rotties, Shepards, etc. Any larger breed dog can be made mean. If you actually check facts you will find that Apbt's Stafordshires(English, and American) are actually pretty low on the agressive dog ladder. Many of the so called acceptable breeds are worse.

It's simply a reactionist stance by politicians wanting to look like they are doing something. I would much rather see people educate themselves than take an automatic negative view of the so called "Pit Bull".


Pit dogs in the past were bred to be aggressive to other dogs or animals but easily handled by people. Since dog fighting has become illegal in the US and United Kingdom, many breeders of these dogs are operating outside the law. Some criminals are interested in creating a dog that will be aggressive to people by breeding a bull and terrier dog with mastiffs to create a larger dog that is wary of strangers. Some of these dogs are used in other countries to hunt large predatory animals such as cougars or to track escaped prisoners. Due to their size, they pose a problem for animal shelters and animal control agencies but the
Unfortunately, large aggressive dogs are in demand by criminals seeking an extension of their own machismo as well as to protect stolen property or contraband. Unfortunately, many breeders still engage in dog fighting regardless of its cruelty and the legal restrictions against it. Thus the group of fighting dogs has acquired a bad reputation because of its association with crime.

Fighting dogs as a group received media attention in the 1990's similar to German Shepherd Dogs in the 50's and Doberman Pinscher's in the 70's. Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Great Danes and Doberman Pinschers still evoke fear in the general public. Several myths about the these dogs persist such as the belief that a dog's jaw "locks" onto a victim or that the jaw pressure of one breed is greater than another's. As a group, fighting and guard dogs are energetic, loyal and willing to please. They are not very reactive to pain and enjoy rough play. These dogs are large and muscular and can be difficult to control as adults if they are not trained to respond to their owner's commands. Guarding dogs all have large heads and jaws. Dog bites from larger breeds are more severe than bites from smaller dogs because of the size of the injuries and the dog's ability to knock a person down during an attack. However, large dogs DO NOT ATTACK MORE OFTEN THAN SMALL DOGS. A large dog attack is just more injurious.



http://www.pethelp.net/dogbreeds.html





"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.


Search the Center for Disease Control site. Even the CDC 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.

Search the American Temperament Test Society. Pit bulls have an average score that beats even the "ultimate family dog", the Golden Retriever.
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/legislation.html



This is what the Humane Society has to say on the subject>



These alarming statistics have caused many communities across the country to enact breed-specific legislation that prohibits people from owning some breeds of dogs, such as pit bulls. American Humane understands that any breed of dog can bite, and as such, believes that breed-specific legislation does not effectively protect the community from dangerous animals. Legislation banning particular breeds can unnecessarily discriminate against dogs that are not dangerous, and does little to protect the community from dog bite incidents. Such legislation can often have unintended consequences, such as black market interest, indiscriminant breeding practices, and subsequent overpopulation issues. Additionally, there can be confusion when dealing with "mixed-breed" dogs, which can make legislation difficult to enforce. Therefore, American Humane supports local legislation to protect communities from dangerous animals, but does not advocate laws that target specific breeds of dogs.

The pit bull is a type of dog bred for fighting, not a specific breed. Responsibly bred and owned, the American Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier -- often referred to as pit bulls -- are not fighting dogs.

http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=nr_fact_sheets_animal_dog_bite



All that being said our family Bulldog saved our daughter! 2-3 yrs ago my brother inlaw was going to kill a dog he had (mixed breed large dog). Being a dog lover i told him i would take it home. I brought it home and cared for it a couple months. One day he broke his collar and escaped the chain. My daughter happened to be playing outside, and he proceeded to attack her. I heard her screaming outside, so i rushed to the front door and outside. Before i had a chance to get close our bulldog Tiger ran from around the side of the house, grabbed the other dog around the throat and pinned him to the ground. Not only that but i never have to worry about my daughter walking home from the bus stop as Tiger has since a young age discerned when the bus comes. At 3pm everyday he has a fit to go outside where he walk to the bus stop and waits on her to get off, then walks her home. I doubt if a stranger would ever be able to get within 10' of her with him around. I am fully greatfull for my dog, and will defend him and his type the whole way.

there who may be horsing around in the vicinity of the girl.. the dog could easily misread the situation and kill a child...

self righteous Dumb Ass, F'n Moron

You callin' me an effin' moron, a dumbass, self righteous??????

Whoa brutha i think you need to step back a bit if you are. No need to act like some key board warrior. You can disagree if you like, but don't presume to know me or my situation.

As far as my daughter and the bus stop goes your assumptions have no bearing. I live in an extremely rural area and there are no other houses around for aroun 1 mile.

I think you need to take a valium and chill out.

If you are not talking to me i appologize. If so you can take your crass assumption of me and my character, and keep them to yourself. Such personal attacks are insipid, and do not speak kindly of your own character. I would refrain from making a fool of myself in the future if i was you.

No need for name-calling.

Please remember these two things when you think you're somehow "safe" from breed-specific bans:

1. Any dog is capable of killing or maiming a human.

2. 99% of a dog's behavior is a result of how they were raised and bred. Get mad at the owners please, not the dog.

I'm curious: do you support racial profiling? I see few similarities between racial profiling and these breed-specific bans.

Oh for Pete's sake!! You can't be serious. Please tell me I misread your post.

the other posts are wholly consistent with being pro-pit

"I see few *differences* between racial profiling and breed-specific bans."

Sorry about that typo :) Yes, I am pro-pit and anti-irresponsible owners. :mad:

If you're punishing an entire group/breed of animal/religion/ethnicity based on the bad actions of a few, how is this any different?

I just got to thiking about this, and am really just curious if there are any differences. If there are, please tell me your thoughts as I'm honestly more than willing to hear you out.

We're not talking about people. Breeding people for specific purposes would be unethical.

Ever try to get a hound to herd sheep? Ever try to get a border collie to trail and tree a raccoon? Ever wonder why retrievers and Newfoundlands absolutely love the water? These animals were selectively bred over many years for specific purposes.

My father kept hounds. He tried other breeds, but most just couldn't follow faint trails. Hounds just have better noses. It was bred into them. Sight hounds are worthless for trailing game that isn't, well, in sight. (By the way, this isn't a plug for hunting; I don't do that anymore.)

It's the old nature / nurture debate again. I personally don't see a dichotomy. Almost always it is a fairly balanced combination of the two. In my mind it's possible that pit bulls still have a fair measure of the aggression that was bred into them that no amount of proper socialization can overcome.

I'm not closed-minded about this. I'll look into it some more.

From the article I posted further down: "Studies have suggested that pit bulls are not inherently dangerous. In evaluations by the American Temperament Testing Society, the pit bull passed at a rate of 83.4 percent, just below the beloved golden retriever and 4.5 points higher than the collie."

And having worked in rescue and around many Pits for as long as I have, I can tell you that proper socialization and rearing DOES indeed account for at least 99.999999% of a dog's behavior as an adult (I would personally even venture to say it accounts for 100% of the dog's behavior).

You said: "Ever try to get a hound to herd sheep? Ever try to get a border collie to trail and tree a raccoon? Ever wonder why retrievers and Newfoundlands absolutely love the water? These animals were selectively bred over many years for specific purposes."

Yes, and I've known many dogs of the breeds you mentioned that, when rescues as pups, do not have these traits if raised and trained properly. I've had Jack Russells in my home that lived like best friends with cats and didn't have an ounce of "go to ground" or chasing in them. It's because we soclialized them around the cats, kids, other dogs, and rabbits. We trained them to listen to owner commands and not their instincts. It is absolutely possible if people are willing to know the "tendencies" of the breed (which in the case of Pits are only there because of careless, irresponsible breeding - again, you need to go after the irresponsible breeders to solve this problem not the responsible owners) and you're willing to be a responsible owner and socialize and train the Pit properly.

Once again I reiterate my point that the real solution to this problem is NOT punishing those who do have wonderful, happy, quiet Pits by making sweeping and illogical bans. You need to go after those PEOPLE breeding for and encouraging aggressive traits and behaviors.

Just pointing it out...

Good catch.

I have 4 of these so-called "killing machines" in my rescue right now. Wonderful dogs.

One of my bulls came from a rescue center, we lover her to death :D

You're right on with everything you said, especially this:

"The problem is not the dog breed it is the people who own then. The very same people will turn to other dogs and make them the same way."

It is a shame...I've known many, many wonderful Pits who were friendly, loveable, and kind. Just like the media always does, they draw attention to the dozen or so "bad" Pits and use them as examples of the breed while ignoring the thousands of GOOD Pits who live peacefully with kids, other animals, and part of the family just like any other dog.

These bans are very, very sad, IMHO.

...:thumbsup:

a 70 pound Bull Terrier.
It's of course the owners.
OUTLAW SUV'S AND McDonald's Fat laced hamburgers.

...That's the best advice I've heard all day.

up with.. it was a mess there was blood and guts all over the ceiling and walls from him shaking the carcus... he was still having fun with it when we got home..

they are the most loving and gentle dogs.. but they have been genetically bred to fight and kill, the wifes dog killed a another dog in the park, he was on a leash. the other dog ran up to play and Rex lurched forward and hit the dog with his shoulder it fell over and rolled.. as the dogs went over on his back and his feet came up rex grabbed his throat and broke his neck with a shaking motion that was so fierce the dog was just a blur..
but he was a sweet dog.

in Modesto CA they banned pits after 4 young children, 2 toddlers, were killed by these dogs.. the bans simply require safety restrictions.. i am walking my dogs on a leash and here comes an idiot with his pit strutting along NOT ON A LEASH, I pull out a "Mace".. not the spray, but a 22" hickory handle with a steel Pipe connector fixed with hex bolts.. he is about 30 feet away.. and says he's OK.. the dog is in attack mode, head down, stalking forward.. I am backing up with 2 dogs, i tell hem to grab you F'n dog till i get out of here.. the Passive aggressive asshole says he wont hurt you.. that is when i tell him i will kill his dog if it attacks my dogs.. he gets all weird and and hostile which que's his dog.. i then tell him he is next.. and he stops and the pit doesn't.. he grabs the dogs collar and the dog is trying to get away from him.. so while he is laying on the ground wrestling the dog i get away...

I started carrying the club when a Pit jumped up on a rock wall 5 feet high right next to me on the sidewalk.. in El Paso they have rock walls right up from the side walk, he is leaning over to jump down to attack my dogs.. and i had the spray mace in my hand and hit him with it..he went back over the fence.

it got so bad i had to quit walking our dogs.. there was another pit to the north about 4 blocks that had a 40 inch gate and a BIG pit.. rex could go over a 6' fence but preferred to chew thru them. rex picked up a bad habit of biting car tires and flattening them.. we had to get rid of him..

i am not arguing the individual dog contained in a home and secure fenced yard, the breed was genetically bred to fight. in controlled situations where they are not exposed to other dogs.. they are different..they can get along with other dogs and i have known people who had other dogs with them.. But I have seen 3 differint pits kill other dogs, not always started by a hostile situation, . if you have other experiences.. well you are just damn lucky.. may you contenue to be.

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.



A true Pitbull Amstaff, Staffordshire, or American PitBull Terrier will almost NEVER bite a human. Why you may ask? Because for well over 100yrs all human aggressive dogs found in these breeds have been culled. Always have been always will be.

The old credo was "man biters die." Downside is inner-city morons don't follow this standard, and encourage human-aggression. Dog-to-dog aggression is fairly typical, as it is with most terriers...my great uncle had an Airedale that tried to eat every dog in the neighborhood...but a real APBT/AmStaf is IME the least-likely to be people-aggressive. They recover from horrifically-abusive situations well, too, responding to kind rehab work and blossoming.

Punish the deed, not the breed...and fer pete's sake concentrate on getting the sociopathic neocons out of office, not picking on a damn dog!

Todd in Beerbratistan
WI Independent Pit Bull Rescue
wipbr.freeservers.com

I would and do support legislation that would ban the sale of non registered dogs from reputable kennel clubs. I would also support heavy penalties that punish owners who breed indiscriminately, or use the bull terrier breeds for unsavory reasons.

At onetime these breeds were known as "nanny dogs" because they were so reliable with children. Americas greatest wartime canine was a bull terrier breed, Helen Keller's favorite companion dog was a Bull terrier breed. At one time this dog was so well loved it was used as the symbol for America, a "pitbull" holds the record for the most awarded working dog.

It all comes down to education. I had thought people on this site were weary of media driven hysteria, and sensationalism. It is plain pure truth that if you call a local t.v. news station and report a German Shepard had bitten some one it is not news, but if you claim it was a pitbull they will be all over, even to the point of plain misidentifying the breed to suit their purpose.

He was just sitting on my lap at girlfriends, and bamm, caught me next to the eye. Still have the scar.
I was playing with a Great Dane retired Attack Defender, and he jumped up on my shoulders, and bit me in the chest. No stiches.
I was riding my bicycle in the foothills above Cucamonga, Ca, when a loose CHOW bit me on the ankle. I tried to kill him, but he was too fast.
A huge dobberman, loose down the street, bit me on a bike ride. Months later he bit someone again and was euthenized by the pound.
I was playing around with my Dobbie, and he won one bout and drew blood. Good dog, best I ever knew.
A friends Great Dane, BLUE, attack defender, was visiting at another friends house for a few days when Blue bit the mom in the wrist/hand very viciously for no reason. Blue was shot in the head that morning.
Tradgic waste, she shouldn't have been anywhere near Blue, but stuff happens. We all knew Blue was touchy about his food bowl.

So Pit Bull Terriers are not for the inane or the casual owner, like a 100 hp street motorcycle or a prescription narcotic, but why ban the tool? Punish the abuser.

And all other dogs before the realize the number one truism about dogs; It isn't the breed of dog that makes it mean, it is the person who owns and trains it!

This has been proven time and again, yet people continue to show up their ignorance. Now whole provinces are showing the same:eyes:

Dogs of all breeds have saved millions of lives over the course of history. First Defense in the wild against intruders, best nose and ears in the battlefield. Best house defense next to a castle & moat.
A dog and an 12 Ga is all you need to repel intruders in the woods or in the city.

Lions aren't dangerous, it's only irresponsible owners that make them a danger to the public.

Thats apples and oranges. A lion is a wild animal that has never been domesticated, Dogs have. A lion looks at people as potential prey, dogs do not.

I would try another analogy, your does not work very well.

it doesn't really matter if the animal views the victim as prey or if it's just doing it for shits and giggles.

A truly bred fighting dog will not bite humans except in extreme rare cases. Why you may ask? Simple again. In a pit you must handle the dog even while he is fighting, you have trainers right in their face as the event is going on, so any dog that should any human aggression was culled.

If you read the articles i posted above it states what the real truth is. #1 most of the so called "pit bulls" are not infact Staffie's, Amstaffs, or Apbt's but a mixed breed. #2 media sensationalism, you never hear of the attacks of other dogs. Any dog is dangerous, but in truth the Bull terrier breeds are in the upper class as far as comparisons to other breeds.

But of course don't let facts get in the way of your predudice. Below show Amstaff, and Abpt temperment compared to some other commonly owned breeds.

American Pit Bull Terrier 469 391 78 83.4%


American Staffordshire Terrier 480 400 80 83.3%


Staffordshire Bull Terrier 59 55 4 93.2%


German Shepherd Dog 2717 2250 467 82.8%


Chihuahua 34 24 10 70.6%


Dachshund (Standard Smooth) 42 28 14 66.7%


Chow Chow 88 61 27 69.3%


Doberman Pinscher 1399 1070 329 76.5%


Shetland Sheepdog 459 306 153 66.7%


Lhasa Apso 26 18 8 69.2%


Old English Sheepdog 45 35 10 77.8%

Golden Retriever 659 551 108 83.6%


http://www.atts.org/


The truth is when it comes to human loyalty few dogs come close to the Amstaff, Stafordshire, or American Pit Bull Terriers (which are the true pitbulls).

http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pets_pitbull

It is a sad day...the owners should be carefully screened. I'd hate to see this breed of loyal and family oriented (in the right hands, as with all dogs) dog die out.

I know many Pits who I would trust a kitten around...and in fact, the owner of this one Pit does foster for a cat rescue and *has* had kittens around the dog. The dog licks the kittens!

This woman and her husband also have two kids, and after almost 13 years there's never been a problem.

I truly believe there are no bad dogs, only bad owners.

...loves kittens. He and our 75# pit/rottie X Weezee dote on them like they were their own, especially Weez who, despite being spayed as a puppy, is quite maternal in her approach to orphaned animal babies of about any kind. Deuce is afraid of adult cats until he gets to know them...we fostered a white Persian for awhile that chased him down the hall! He and Weez are CGC, and do humane-ed demos at elementary schools.

Deuce with the mean kitty:



Deuce's page on dogster: http://www.dogster.com/pet_page.php?i=110739

Todd in Beerbratistan

:hi:

They are so cute!! :loveya:

...look at that vicious monster!!! :P Kitties, she LOVES. Dogs on the other hand.. she likes them.. as long as they're submissive. She loves to wrestle. If the dog is also a dominant dog.. then she has an issue with them.

...the provincial attorney pushing for this, Michael Bryant, repeatedly failed to correctly identifiy the American Pit Bull Terrier in a lineup of photos presented by a gutsy TV reporter (why don't we have reporters like that here? I'd love to sic this lady on Puffy McMoonface!). Typical. Infuriating, but typical. What an assclown...

DU'ers with pitties...hug your dawgs tonight. I've got a whole herd to hug, what with our rescues we foster in addition to our own pitdorks. Rescue orgs are filling up beacause of this ON crap...

Todd in Beerbratistan
Wisconsin Independent Pit Bull Rescue wipbr.freeservers.com

:toast:

I personally always think of racial profiling advocates whenever I see people getting all relieved when there's a breed-specific ban enacted somewhere.

ANY breed of dog is capable of killing if it has been bred or raised to do so. The problem with aggressiveness stems from poor breeding (fault of the person breeding) and poor socialization (also the fault of the person owning/raising the dog). If you want to enact fruitless and nonsensical "bans", you should ban stupid people.

I personally can't see much difference between racial profiling and breed profiling (what these bans are). If I'm mistaken, I'm more than willing to hear you out.

To me, it seems like people are punishing an entire breed for the unfortunate actions of a few bad eggs. There are bad eggs in every religion, ethnicity, etc...but we don't punish the entire group just for a few bad actions of a few individuals. Why should this be any different?

You are right, discriminating by breed is essentially congruous with discriminating by race.

But because in one case you are discriminating against Humans, and in another case, dogs. It is ethically a very different situation unless you want to extend what we call human rights to animals, which some people certainly do.

But as far as mainstream ethics, It would seem to me that dogs are not entitled to equality under the law.

It's in the individual doing the profiling. The profiling is the issue, not whom or what is being profiled. Don't compare man to dog or rights to rights. Compare agenda to agenda, the agenda being profiling and the result one wishes to gain.

As for equality under the law, it depends what law, specifically.

The issue is the profiling itself, not who/what is being profiled.

Any kind of profiling is wrong because it is wrong to "judge a book by its cover" so to speak, or make broad (and often inaccurate) generalizations. My post further down indicates that Pit Bulls as a breed have been temperament tested and bested Collies, and were only a few points below golden retrievers.

There is simply no basis for this asinine legislation. The only ones punished are the responsible owners and their dogs.

Whenever any dog attacks someone, people should remember that we are reaping the benefits of not taking backyard breeding and pet overpopulation seriously. Maybe instead of passing inconsequential, unfair, and "band-aid" legislation like breed-specific bans, we should concentrate more in actually SOLVING the problem by cracking down on irresponsible owners and people who breed indiscriminately and irresponsibly. You'll cut down on dog attacks much more by doing the latter.

Here is the post you posted, edited, then deleted. I copied and pasted:

"Edited on Mon Aug-29-05 10:40 PM by K-W

(Your title was something like these are dogs not people) in any but the most superficial sense. Your argument that it is based on a flawed assumption, and a band aid solution are quite good. But the racial profiling connection isnt persuasive at all."

Ultimately, one could argue that it does directly affect human beings - the owners of those dogs who have rights and don't deserve this. They must either give up their beloved family members or be forced to move. Nonetheless, it is a valid argument anyway because as I said, the problem is with the profiling itself, not who/what is being profiled. It has nothing at all to do with assigning human rights to animals. It has to do with the fact that profiling isn't a reliable method to use in situations such as this, nor is it "fair" in its most basic sense.

If you have a sound statement to make, please do. Don't just post something, withdraw it, and leave "nevermind" in it's wake as IF you had something incredibly profound to add.

Nor why I should feel obligated to continue a discussion I do not wish to continue.

as IF you had something incredibly profound to add.

I dont know why you think the word nevermind implies that I had something incredibally profound to add. In fact I think it implies just the opposite. But I assure you my comments were not profound. I thought them fairly sensible, but hardly profound. Regardless, this debate was going nowhere I said nevermind, you will have to find someone else to argue with.

You didn't have anything incredibly profound or persuasive to add anyway, so trust me...I'm not losing sleep over your desire to "not continue" with debating. You don't seem to understand the issue very well at all, so it's just as well to me. :shrug:

I really dont understand your confusion.

And I understand the topic just fine thank you. Why is letting this drop so difficult for you? Is it really neccessary to take shots at me when I stopped arguing with you yesterday?

Your response that you deleted wasn't too impressive.

I'm still interested in this thread, so if you're so "over" it like you say you are, you're free to stop responding, too. :shrug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

nt

Or because they can be similarly careless with firearms?

No, we prosecute such negligent people, because that's where the blame belongs, and there are people who know how to be responsible.

I'm not sure what the difference is between potentially deadly animals and potentially deadly weapons.

You've made an excellent point.

Like we go after irresponsible gun owners, we need to go after irresponsible backyard breeders and pet owners, not ban a breed that has has tested better in temperment evaluations than Collies.

...someone from a Canadian chapter of the Humane Society said that banning pit bulls sends the wrong message to kids, and compared it to telling kids that when crossing the street, they should watch out for the big trucks, but not to worry about any other vehicles.

in some ways resemble how Canada treats firearms, with restricted and prohibited categories. The definition of a "pit bull" follows

Definition

1. (1) In this Act,

“owner”, when used in relation to a dog, includes a person who possesses or harbours the dog and, where the owner is a minor, the person responsible for the custody of the minor; (“propriétaire”)

“pit bull” includes,

(a) a pit bull terrier,

(b) a Staffordshire bull terrier,

(c) an American Staffordshire terrier,

(d) an American pit bull terrier,

(e) a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to those of dogs referred to in any of clauses (a) to (d); (“pit-bull”)

The full text is here:
<http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90d16_e.htm#BK1>

The law was revised due to a number of high profile and quite gruesome cases of "pit bull" attacks. The Attorney General was sucker punched by the photos in the paper. There was no indication of size and he is by no means a dog expert. I scored about 90%.

Like many of us have said: they are BRED and RAISED that way by IRRESPONDIBLE PEOPLE. The fault lies with the *people* interacting with these dogs, NOT the dogs themselves. Again, if you really want to solve this problem, take it out on what really causes the problem:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0534,shaftel,67093,5.html

Tyler Eison, gazing reverently at a litter of seven-week-old pit bull puppies. "I like having very vicious, angry dogs. I'm going to teach them not to like other dogs. I'm going to agitate them, make them aggressive. That way when it's about business, they are going to be serious."

Hoping to turn Rock's offspring into deadly weapons, Eison started antagonizing them when they were around nine weeks old. One afternoon he held an all-brown puppy by its midsection and for several minutes forced it to lie across the neck of one its sisters, who Eison believes might be the pick of the litter. Eison didn't think the brown pup was willing enough to play rough, so he decided to force it into a scrum. After a minute or so, its sister became angry and began to growl and bite the brown one's ears. After the incident the brown puppy cowered under a metallic-blue racing motorcycle Eison keeps in the backyard and peed.

Studies have suggested that pit bulls are not inherently dangerous. In evaluations by the American Temperament Testing Society, the pit bull passed at a rate of 83.4 percent, just below the beloved golden retriever and 4.5 points higher than the collie. That said, the city's shelters reported that almost 6,000 bull breeds (pit bulls and pit bull mixes) were admitted in the last fiscal year. Though they represent 37 percent of all dogs in city shelters, bull breeds accounted for almost half of the 7,136 dogs euthanized in shelters last year. Pit bulls are routinely adopted, but shelter officials say a disproportionate number can't be because they haven't been socialized properly. Some have spent their whole lives in cages.

People, please. Ban the backyard and irresponsible breeders, NOT the dog breed itself.

I think my mutt is a pit mix. One thing I have to say is that he likes to bite (playfully) much more than other dogs I have owned. That may be an inherited trait which some owners take advantaqe of by antagonizing them.

they're living critters, not tools with a "purpose"
funny how ban-fixated adopt the "killing machine" language of the witless dolts who breed them for rudeness and train them for meanness by beating them

and this is in bumf*k Kansas. I am being forced to live a half hour away from work when i could have lived 5 minutes away, because I have a pit bull. This fact could seriously impact whether or not i want to stay here very long.

:yourock:

good for you for standing up for your pet.

be "too dangerous" to live inside a certian city's limits? what an O8)

What a sweetie! :hi:

Aww!!! :loveya:

He loves everyone and that tail is always going. It is a blur in the pic lol. He gets along great with my cats and his best friend is a 14 year old poodle. He is kind and gentle :D

nothing personal to the dogs but they just have some ignorant owners at time and unfortunately with pit bulls if there is only 1 ignorant owner out of 10 that is 1 too many. good

Would you support banning guns because if there is 1 "ignorant" gun owner out of every 10 that 1 is too many? Would you support outlawing Muslims in federal buildings and airports because if there is 1 bad one wanting to attack us out of 10 that one is too many?

Please think before posting such ridiculous things.

of course I support gun control 100%

I asked if you support banning guns, because of a few irresponsible people didn't lock their guns up and kids were shot. Do you think it is fair to ban all guns because they are known to be deadly?

That is, essentially what these pit bans do. They ban an entire breed simple because a few idiots weren't responsible breeders and/or owners.

and spray paint...and cleaning agents...and auto engine coolant...

should I keep going, or has my point been made?

Here is one of my personal heros. Never shirks his duties, loving and gentle to a fault, loyal like no other. My families beloved companion Tiger PeePee Puddles, also known effectionately known as Poodles(one of my youn childeren could not say puddles).


&s=

Hope these ideas come to the United States. I've seen too many children ripped to shreads by huge dogs that shouldn't have been domesticated in the first place.

It's fine to have a pet, but why do people feel the need to have such vicious ones?

I remember growing up, all the children in the neighborhood lived in fear of the four huge dogs kept in a yard at the end of the street. It got worse when they learned how to jump the fence.....

borders.

"Vicious" pets are usually kept by like people. Your broad-brush painting is, well...unfounded.

Tell me of the people that kept these 4 huge dogs at the end of the street. What were the people like, and what made the dogs so nasty?

I've seen children that have been maimed by Corgis and Cockers, Dalmations and Dachsies. Should they be banned too?

And there's quite a few on this thread, unfortunately.

I've been watching this situation for a while now.

As for the dogs on my street... They are gone. One got loose and attacked kids. So, there you go. They were "nice" dalmations, too. I know the people who live in that home too. They are not "irresponsible" people.

Even "nice" people who have "nice" dogs are not exempt from this. Dogs are animals. There are specific dogs breeds that are prone to attack people. It's simple. I don't see why everybody is blind to what is going on here.


Here ya go:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/09/15/deadly.dogs.ap/

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/02/25/dog.bite/

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

And your response to me was unbelievably rude as well.

You may think you are informed but truthfully, you aren't from what I can tell. May I ask how many years you have spent working with rescue or around Pits?

Should we ban them? What about kids killed by drowning in pools? Should we ban them, too? Or bathtubs? Or stairsteps? They kill many kids every year.

When, oh when will people realize that we're finally experiencing the effects of not taking irresponsible pet owners and irresponsible backyard breeders seriously? No, let's not address the real root of the problem. Let's just breed profile certain dogs and ban them, punishing only those who are responsible and have good dogs.

Geez, I'm amazed people on DU are so ignorant about this subject and fail to see how unbelievably illogical it is.

I'm sure they're are plenty of people on DU who would support gun control. Your comparisons don't even rate.

What is the real "root" of the problem, oh enlightened one?

Seems to me there have been too many "irresponsible" dog owners. It seems to me it's the "normal" dog owners that are in the fire here.

I think you are blind to what is going on here. Oh well, let more people get maimed by "irresponsible" dogs. Please. :eyes:

Maybe if you did a little research, you would find out what is going on.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

The majority of victims are CHILDREN - the majority of deaths are CHILDREN - 65% of attacks happen AT HOME - A child is more likely to get attacked than a burglar.

Wake up.

It is a perfectly valid point. Many people and kids are killed and maimed by many different things in life, but are you honestly saying that it is sensible to just ban anything that has the potential to kill?

If you'll read some of my posts, the "root" of the problem is the irresponsible backyard breeders who breed for nasty temperments and the irresponsible owners who do not properly socialize or raise their dogs. Plus, most attacks happen because people do not properly leash their pets. If you want to get to the root of the problem, crack down on irresponsible breeding and bad owners.

"I think you are blind to what is going on here. Oh well, let more people get maimed by "irresponsible" dogs."

Oh for pete's sake. I probably have spent more time around pit bulls than you or half the people on this thread. I've worked in rescue since I was 10 years old. And honestly, do you truly believe that I WANT people to get maimed by dogs? I want people to breed responsibly and breed pets who will be stable and with good temperments. I want people to be responsible owners as well. What I DO NOT want is an entire breed being banned and scapegoated. This kind of breed profiling just doesn't make any sense.

And if you respond to this, I'm kindly asking that you please quit with the sarcastic and obnoxious undertones. If you want to have a discussion, then do it in a mature way and I promise to do the same.

mixed breeds with one of these breeds are subject as well...boxers, bulldogs (any variety), French bull terriers, bull terriers, Dogo Argentinos, Canes, Dogue de Bordeaux, many mastiffs, including the bull mastiff...any of 'em that LOOK like a pit are subject to the very whim and opinion of the expertise of the local animal control constables.

Now what say you?

at some point in their lives. They seem fine then suddenly snap one day and bite a human or another dog. My cousin's bf's pit bull had never shown signs of being vicious and suddenly one day bit someone. Likewise, the neighbor's pit bull nearly killed her silky dachsund. My friend's part pit bull suddenly went nuts one day and nearly killed her golden retriever companion of three years. At the last peace vigil, a lady had a half pit bull that viciously went after every single jogger. (I don't think the dog was kidding, either.)

I'd like to think that these are aberrations. For awhile, I did, but the more I'm actually around pit bulls and hear about their pasts (suddenly flipping out after years of good behavior), the less I'm inclined to trust them. :shrug:

Granted, those are pretty extreme cases, all of which seem very unfortunate. I'm not defending those particular dogs, but for those 4, I can testify to 53, that's right, 53 pits and pit mixes that have come through my rescue in the last 2 years. Some terribly abused, used as bait, never socialized. Every single one has been placed (homes without other dogs, and no small kids...they tend to be very rambunctious around small children and can knock them down, etc) with no issues. I hope this continues.

I know, you said "years of good behavior" but I would offer that situation plays a huge role here, as does "owner understanding" of the dog.

I CAN understand your point, though. If your only experiences are bad ones, you tend to side with what you've seen.

concerned that viciousness may have been bred into the breed. Like I said in another post, I really like the looks of the Staffordshire Terrier. They are handsome dogs. For awhile, I thought that the "bad eggs" might be a result of bad people wanting to get ahold of dogs with a bad reputation, but the people I knew who had these dogs treated them like a part of the family. Our half-pit "peace dog" hasn't come across as very peaceful since he started taking off after joggers. Luckily, he's on a harness.

I really didn't want to see a pattern. I wanted to believe what is spouted on every single dog show I've watched: "The Staffordshire terrier has received a bad rap." I wanted to believe that, but my personal experiences haven't been so good. And, interestingly, I've only known of a few other breeds that have done what the pits have done. An Akita I knew years ago bit someone. A German shepherd I knew years ago bit someone. Other than that I can't think of any other aggressive dog stories. :shrug: The others are all pit bull-related.

All I know is that this breed was specifically bred for fighting other dogs, bred for viciousness and that they seem to suddenly just snap and go into berserk mode. Besides personal stories, I have, of course, heard stories on the media. It seems that when a fatal attack on a human occurs, it usually involves a pit bull.

I'll read the article friesanrider suggested and give the matter more thought. Due to what information I've had, I tend to think that the original purpose of these dogs is still in their blood. I could change my mind, but it would take additional information. Two years ago, I would have defended pit bulls. :shrug:

"I tend to think that the original purpose of these dogs is still in their blood."

It hasn't always been this way, fortunately. So many people are breeding and raising Pits for the sole purpose of killing, and that makes the people at fault for the way things are today. Combined with poor socialization (or worse, like the guy in the article who deliberately torments and tortures his puppies) and you've got a recipe for disaster - no matter what the breed.

I totally see your point here. I just firmly believe (with 12 years experience working with rescue and Pit Bulls and other bull terriers), having known MANY wonderful, happy, calm Pits who lived long lives peacefully with cats, birds, and kids, that the real problem here lies with irresponsible breeding and just plain old bad owners. You can take any breed of dog and if you screen out the nice ones for breeding in favor of the unusually nasty ones, combined with deliberate provocation when the dog is growing up, and any breed on this Earth will be vicious and attack.

Another one of my concerns is that say the Congress bans Pits in the US. People will just pick another breed to fight and use for "protection." They'll go after Chows (another unusually aggressive breed) or Collies or what-have-you. It won't stop just because you ban a breed - these unethical criminals will just find another breed to breed poorly and torment into an aggressive adult (then breed that dog again, repeat, repeat).

I think we need to find a happy medium. I don't want the breed to die out. It would be so much better if the breeding of "aggressive" dogs was left to regulated, licensed dog breeders that had periodic inspections of their facilities. God, I would have hated that as a bird breeder, but I think it's a good middle-of-the-road plan. It might also get rid of such horrible congenital defects as hip dysplasia. :shrug:

Breeders would have to charge more to pure-breds. I'm not sure how this would affect pounds and shelters. It might save a lot of lives in the end...who knows?

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0534,shaftel,67093,5.html

This is why many pits are the way they are. Please don't blame the dogs for human beings being irresponsible with their breeding and early socialization.

It is the HUMAN intervention that turns good dogs bad - most dogs (and I personally believe all dogs) are born just fine. It is pieces of filth like this man who turn them into the stereotypical "killers" (and trut me, there are tens of thousands of owners and breeders just like this man doing just this same thing to Pit pups). If we really care at all about animals and about truly solving this problem and not just doing a band-aid fix, we need to stop punishing the responsible owners and start cracking down on backyard breeders like this who deliberately antagonize and/or torture young pups to turn them into tomorrow's killers.

that viciousness may be bred into them, that's all. I will read the article. As you know, I do love animals. If my Amazon parrot was big enough, he would be banned as a pet. He's vicious with strangers. It can't be helped. It's just the way Amazons are. :shrug: Luckily, they aren't mobile or big enough to be dangerous.

I am always weary of Pits - not because I think they're all bad but because I know there's just dumb people out there. It always sucks when the animals end up paying the price.

Thanks for your response :)

People who buy or adopt a pit bull don't know if they're getting a dog that may be more aggressive. I'm not for killing them off. Ontario is simply putting a moratorium on breeding. Perhaps the Staffy can overcome if placed in the hands of licensed, reputable breeders.

You need to buy from a responsible breeder who has shown and trained dogs (and specifically the breed they are choosing to reproduce) their entire life. They should temperment and health test to the max, and breed a maximum of 1 litter a year, and only be breeding for potential show dogs. They should also fully screen any buyers of their pups and send their pups home with a lifetime "return" policy and with a temperment guarantee. Anyone who breeds and does a smidge less than that isn't doing it for the right reasons.

Anyone can find an aggressive golden retriever/collie/lab and breed it. If you take an unusually aggressive specimen of any breed and breed it - then torment the puppies to encourage that behavior, you will likely get an aggressive dog. This is what is happening to Pits at an alarming rate. This is why I strongly advocate against banning breeds, but banning irresponsible breeding of an dog/cat/whatever. The fault lies in the hands of owners and breeders, not the dog or dog breed itself.

I would like to see breeding of pits regulated because they are the targets for drug dealers and dog fighters. You are correct that the fault lies with the people who did this to the dogs.

It upsets me because I like the look of a pit bull very much--to the point where I even considered the breed should I get a dog. At my last apartment complex, the neighbors across the hall had a beautiful reddish-tan and white pit that was extremely friendly. He was still a big puppy. I sometimes wonder what happened to him and if he ever suddenly just snapped. I hope not. He was well-treated and well-trained from what I saw.

Parrot breeding in the US concerns me because unmanageable parrots often end up as breeders. What's wrong with this picture? I'm afraid that we'll end up with parrots that are very aggressive. I personally believe that importation should be completely stopped everywhere, now(!), and that if we are going to keep these beautiful animals as pets there needs to be a concerted effort directed at making them fully domesticated. This would take many, many years of yard work and I only know of one person who set out to try it with the Panama Amazon. Unfortunately, I don't know what happened to him. :(

And I really appreciate that. Those of us who feel strongly against this type of blanket legislation often get frustrated because naturally many people's first reaction is to just support it without looking further into it. I definitely sense that you're keeping an open mind to this, which is awesome. I wish more people were like you and took the time to investigate this issue further. :)

But they do seem to have a propensity to attack weaker and smaller animals. And some of this transfers to children, too.

I'm not sure if this kind of a ban will be satisfactory, but I think two things must be learned:

1. "Pit Bulls" are a very frightening mental image, largely brought about by media reports. But why do we hear about them so much? Because of owners who encourage such violent behaviours. And because a certain subspecies of this dog are bred for the purpose of killing.

2. There are many legitimate breeders who breed these dogs with gentle demeanours. And they have a good history as pets and companions.

1. Yes. Bingo. Exactly. Well, except for the last part. It's not a subspecies, it's a line. Folks breed a line of this dog to be nasty, then raise them nasty. They're raised as gamedogs. Brutally treated by folks that could never be the game, nor play the game.

2. See item #1. Legitimate breeders? Tell you what...line up 10 "legitimate breeders" and I'll show you 9.5 backyard breeders or puppymillers looking for bucks. The other 0.5? Yeah, raising gamedogs.

Legitimate breeder is an oxymoron 99.999999999% of the time (a/k/a responsible or "ethical" breeder).

With rights come responsibilities. Currently, dog owners only have rights, but very little responsibility/accountability. This is why we hear about people getting mauled everyday.

Owners of these dogs tend to be the most naive, annoying, irresponsible types who think it's so cute when people are mauled "Oh, Rex was such a nice doggie.."

I say go after the owners. Let them have their dogs, but make sure they are licensed/registered/background checks. They should be charged with a misdemeanor if their dog threatens or bites someone, and a felony if the dog mauls or kills someone (exceptions can be made if the dog is defending against a criminal/intruder).

Easy.

That would instantly force down the supply and demand of ALL viscious breeds. And even people with "regular" breeds will make sure to monitor their dog very closely.

Viscious pets are weapons much worse than guns, because they can be unpredictable.

I believe in gun and weapon rights and the right to self defense - but if I or someone else threatens/murders someone with my weapon - I will be held accountable.

That's the way it should be.

"Owners of these dogs tend to be the most naive, annoying, irresponsible types who think it's so cute when people are mauled "Oh, Rex was such a nice doggie.."

Exactly right...or, they think it is cute when their dogs nearly bite someone's hand off. I can;t tell you how many Pits we've rescued who were beaten and tortured by their owners to make them the way they are. In my book, that puts the problem with owners, not the dog.

"I say go after the owners. Let them have their dogs, but make sure they are licensed/registered/background checks. They should be charged with a misdemeanor if their dog threatens or bites someone, and a felony if the dog mauls or kills someone (exceptions can be made if the dog is defending against a criminal/intruder)."

Right on, mixedview. You sound like you've definitely got the right idea here! :hi:

Of course they're going to be more demonized.

I saw a rap video a few days ago where a pit bull was prominently displayed. I don't see a lot of videos, but I would be surprised if this was uncommon.

People on DU who are usually so aware of media bias just lap this up with absolutely no hesitation. If you believed in the media completely, you would believe that Bush was a good president, almost all crimes were committed by minorities, and almost all murders and kidnappings had white women as the victims.

The media and the public have a cyclical relationship. The public has an image of what things SHOULD be formed in its mind by the media, and expects to see thigns which confirm this viewpoint. The media supplies what the public wants.

More people are bitten and attacked by other breeds of dogs than pit bulls. Often the victims of violence are not white women. 9/10 serial killers are white males. But do we hear about it? Maybe in passing. But mostly, only the stories that conform to the biased view the public expects are played again and again and again. Pitbulls are the most evil breed of dog imaginable. White women are in constant danger. Black men are all criminals who will murder and kill at will. And it's sad to see people who are usually right on the media's ass and who don't believe it just smiling and taking it.

Were bred to be dog aggressive. That is why you hear about APBT's (a recognized breed--not a "type" of dog) going after other dogs. Irresponsible owners are a blight whatever breed they keep.

As to comparing dogs to guns, not even close. My guns are inanimate objects, incapable of self actuation. My APBT's on the other hand are capable of independent action. I have a walled yard and locked gates. I do not allow my dogs outside unleashed ever, and when they are on a leash, it is a short leash.

Banning the dogs is retarded. As is banning guns. Responsibility on the owner's part is required for both, or tragedy will be the end result.

Here is my Pit Bull savagely attacking a nap.


As you can clearly see, she is viciously engaged in contact with the couch, and at some point, she will probably roll over and continue to maul it.

What a FACE! (and what a great post, too!)

"I have a walled yard and locked gates. I do not allow my dogs outside unleashed ever, and when they are on a leash, it is a short leash. Banning the dogs is retarded. As is banning guns. Responsibility on the owner's part is required for both, or tragedy will be the end result."

You're so right on here, friend. It is foolish and unfair to punish everyone for the bad actions of a few bad OWNERS, not bad dogs. What's more, say they ban Pits in the entire country. Do we honestly think these drug dealers/gangs who antagonize and fight Pits are just going to say "welp, guess we can't fight dogs anymore." Hell, no. They'll just move on to another breed and give that otherwise excellent breed a bad name. Will we then ban that breed? And the one after that?

The solution to this problem can be found in regulating irresponsible breeders and owners...NOT banning an entire breed and ultimately only punishing the responsible owners (like you!).

You GO girl! :yourock: Excellent post!

Many of the so-called "pit bulls" I've seen on the news because of an attack are mixes, or not even close! The difficulty in identifying the breed is well-known.

I am very ambivalent about pitbull bans. Pitbulls have made me a lot of money over the years. However it is at the cost of maimed children. Would society be better off with no pitbulls but fewer scarred children? Probably. But I would make less money.

(Actually, I am not ambivalent at all about these dogs. They are a menace and should be done away with.)

Dare I ask why?

How exactly did you make money from these poor animals, and why at the cost of maimed children?? :wtf:

AND my scariest encounter was a CHOW that had me dead to rights in the foothills of Cucamonga, riding my bike. AND the badest man-killers, potentially, are Rotweillers over 120 Lbs, not 70 Lb "Pits".
Though any large dog should be managed because of the danger. (imo)
So please, outlawing a breed is like outlawing Pot, Shine or guns, the users who are abusers cause the harm. A cyclone fence with razor wire or electrified fence should be required for vicious dogs, that's one part of the solution. Do the license thing or spay/neutering for non-licensed breeding, but banning a breed is like banning science or cloning or embryonic research, IMHO.