6 ms·

The article does not say but I'd bet $20 that breed-specific legislation would help. Most people can't handle a pet tiger ("it's just how you train them!" yeah

by madars 2y ago

The article does not say but I'd bet $20 that breed-specific legislation would help. Most people can't handle a pet tiger ("it's just how you train them!" yeah right) and when 6% of dogs (pit bulls and pit bull breeds) account for 68% of dog attacks and 52% of fatalities [1] it is time to recognize the fact. (edit: add citation) [1] https://time.com/2891180/kfc-and-the-pit-bull-attack-of-a-little-girl/ https://time.com/2891180/kfc-and-the-pit-bull-attack-of-a-li...

dgfitz 2y ago
This article doesn’t say it but I’d bet 20 bucks that legislation is fucking useless.
anothername12 2y ago
I would bet more. My home owner’s insurance comes with a section on what dogs I can’t own under the terms of the insurance. It’s a couple dozen specific breeds, not just pit bulls.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  I include a similar section in my residential real estate leases. I am simply not willing to accept the unnecessary financial, operational, and reputational risk as a housing provider.
bastawhiz 2y ago
I'm extremely sympathetic to folks who have absolutely delightful pit bulls. But the numbers simply don't lie. Pass legislation that creates high mandatory minimum fines for dog attacks on postal workers, and require that home insurers are responsible to pay. Allow and encourage communities to pass ordinances that require home insurance for owners of certain breeds. Require breeders to receive certification that buyers have notified their insurer of the purchase of a dog (regardless of whether it's covered). As soon as there's a financial disincentive to own one of these dogs, the number of owners will drop off dramatically. The first few years will be tough as many people give up their animals, but the are dogs that should never have been bred in the first place. It's heartbreaking but necessary, especially when you look at the consequences of unchecked ownership of dangerous dog breeds. Edit: Really curious why y'all are downvoting. You don't agree that dangerous dogs are dangerous? Or that you should be financially responsible for the risks associated with your animals? Really, what's the disagreement?
- major505 2y ago
  the problem is deciding what is a pitbull. Thers lots of races and dogs that are noit that got thrown in the mix. Is like gun legislation. Everything is an AR for politicians. If they are going legislate against a dog race is better to weight limit. Personally I agree with you that the better way is to make owner of aggressive dogs responsible by their pets behavior and make them pay fines or even jail time depending of the gravity of the attack. Now for breeds that should never been breed in first place, i would put pugs and Bulldogs on the list.
  - bastawhiz 2y ago
    A simple DNA test can decide whether a dog "is" (percentage wise) a breed. A dog that's 30% pit decidedly has the characteristics of a dangerous breed. 5%, probably not. The goal isn't to be perfect, it's to make ownership complexity reflect the risk. It's inviable to outlaw a breed altogether at this point. If folks don't buy dangerous dogs because they're expensive to own, the market dries up and the breeders stop breeding.
    - major505 2y ago
      but here it is. dangerous dogs are a relative term. I saw this before. with dobermans, then rotwailers... I prefer people to be free to get whatever dog they want, as long as they accept the responsability for it. I have a big dog, a mixed race with more than 40kg. Shes swweet, but when out the house shes always with a chocke colar, because you never know how a dog can react in new situations. This is taking responsability for your dogs actions. I would also agree to ban big dogs from dog parks. Because theres always fights in dog parks.
      - bastawhiz 2y ago
        > This is taking responsability for your dogs actions. Wearing a choke collar isn't a fix in the slightest. Dogs can dig, they can bust out windows, they can slip out the door. Hell, they can rip their leash out of your hands. My uncle's dog pulled my grandmother down some concrete steps, resulting in a hospital stay. Taking responsibility is paying a real, material cost up front when you get the dog and being held responsible for taking the necessary precautions (e.g., by your insurance company). If you want a dog that's risky, taking responsibility should be a sobering ongoing burden that's non-optional. If you don't want that burden, pick a smaller dog.
andrewla 2y ago
The attack specifically mentioned in the article was an Alsation (in the US called a German Shepherd). Though not typically included in breed-specific legislation I think there is good data to suggest that they are in the top five for dog attacks resulting in serious injury. EDIT: the linked report from the postal workers union [1] cites specifically the underenforcement of the Dangerous Dog Act [2], which does not affect German Shepherds in its current form, so would not help this case. [1] https://cwue5.org/2024/07/12/rm-cwu-national-dog-awareness-week-1-7-july-2024-and-message-to-new-labour-government/ https://cwue5.org/2024/07/12/rm-cwu-national-dog-awareness-w... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Dogs_Act_1991 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Dogs_Act_1991
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  German Shepherds are a great example of a good dog breed that is taken up by people that "just love them" who don't give the dog what it needs to be happy. GSDs must have their daily exercise and stimulation. If they don't get it, they get restless and anxious and begin to freak out and get aggressive. They're not meant to sit in a terrace house in England or American apartment.
  - andrewla 2y ago
    This is a common refrain from fans of all breeds. I’m not sure that I buy it. The null hypothesis is that the “proper stimulation” correlation with “propensity to attack” is a function of population prevalence. There are simply more dogs that don’t receive the “proper stimulation” than dogs that do (especially with True Scotsman-style goalpost moving) so they are overrepresented in attacks. But anecdotally we’ve seen the testimony across all breeds - “my dog is so gentle and likes to play with children, I can’t imagine where this attack came from”. I’d have to have some serious data on non-attack-involved dogs before I’d consider rejecting the null hypothesis. In any sort of analytic consideration here the first thing to look at is whether the breed is capable of causing grievous harm. Temperament second, and treatment/training third. And of course overall prevalence. But in terms of the policy decision around breed-specific legislation all that really matters is the number of attacks.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bdcravens 2y ago
As the owner of two pit mixes, I'm biased, but I acknowledge statistics, and recognize that mine may be atypically gentle. The issue of course is a lot of BSL is too wide in scope. There's a big difference between a 70 pound Staffy and a 35 pound APBT-lab mix, and that's not just limited to size and strength.
- eldaisfish 2y ago
  dog genetics are probabilities. Your dogs are likely able to suppress their instinct but find the right trigger and your dogs are very likely to be ripping out an animal’s throat, including a human’s. BSL works because it is also based on probabilities, specifically the probability that a group of closely related dog breeds are all likely to exhibit the same behaviour. The problem with pit bull type dogs is the breeding that makes them attack a target’s most sensitive region - the neck. Better to have all related breeds removed that run the risk of yet another child dying because someone could not be arsed to contrôle their dog.
  - RajT88 2y ago
    Can confirm. My dog is the sweetest thing (a mutt, mostly Australian shepherd) but she is ready to murder when she sees a possum or raccoon. A threatening person I have little doubt she would have a go at.
    - bdcravens 2y ago
      Dachshunds are the same way, as they are bred to be hunters.
  - hw-guy 2y ago
    I agree. Pitbulls should be regarded as a public health threat like smallpox or the aedes aegypti mosquito, and eradicated.
  - bdcravens 2y ago
    [flagged]
fwip 2y ago
[flagged]
- liveoneggs 2y ago
  All of these are full of weasels. Sometimes it's not a "pitbull" because it's a "staffy" or a "bully" or a various mix with presa canario/dogo argentino. It is pretty much always a fighting breed/mix, with the general strong-jaw/short-hair/large-head look. I don't think it's a mistake that the vast majority of dogs in my local humane society are now these types of dogs.
  - observationist 2y ago
    They're no more aggressive than other breeds. Pit bulls, specifically, are among the calmest and most temperamentally stable breeds across many studies, and from what I can tell, nearly always in the top 20 of ~200 other breeds considered. Dog breeding for fighting has very little to do with temperament and a whole lot to do with physiology and intelligence. They have very strong neck and jaw muscles, and are very large. That means the stakes for aggression are much higher. Smaller dogs are more likely to be aggressive and neurotic, and can legitimately take more work to train and socialize. Larger dogs, across the board, regardless of specific breed, cause more damage when they attack. The lockjaw myth and killer instinct myth are just that - myths. The statistics of dog attacks and fatalities are woven into a complex tapestry of human behaviors and circumstances - demonizing a particular breed is about as stupid and kneejerk an argument as can be made. https://spartacuslawfirm.com/top-car-models-with-the-most-duis-a-surprising-list-for-drivers/ https://spartacuslawfirm.com/top-car-models-with-the-most-du... The Acura NSX has the most DUIs associated with it. That's probably due to the culture around people who want those cars, their socio-economic conditions, the level of enforcement on that demographic, the overall number of cars made available for purchase, the level of marketing, how the marketing was targeted, and so on, and so forth. DUIs being associated with that particular car has nothing to do with Acura NSX being more or less likely to cause the driver to be drunk. More attacks associated with pit bulls have nothing to do with the breed except at a superficial level. All sorts of cultural baggage and irresponsible human behavior underpins every dog attack, and banning a breed of dog isn't going to impact the rate of dog attacks in the slightest. Weight limits tied to graduated licensing such that someone has to demonstrate they can be responsible before owning a potentially dangerous animal might be reasonable. If you want a Saint Bernard, you have to demonstrate the resources and capacity to handle it responsibly, etc. If someone doesn't have the resources or time, they've got no business owning the animal.
seabird 2y ago
Breed specific legislation isn't a real solution. Pit bulls are one entry on a long list of strong dogs that require good training and a careful owner. There's plenty of other breeds antisocial assholes or uneducated owners can't and/or won't control to replace them. Dog attacks need to be treated like a negligent discharge. When that happens, you will immediately see a massive drop in the number of people with poorly trained dogs they can't handle.
InitialLastName 2y ago
This is about the UK, where pit bulls have been banned for 30 years. Either the BSL isn't helping, or the breeds at fault aren't banned. Reading the article itself, the breeds mentioned are: alsatians, greyhounds, bull mastiffs, and chihuahuas.
trhway 2y ago
>I'd bet $20 that breed-specific legislation would help. Most people can't handle a pet tiger The most dangerous animal is humans, yet we allow people to freely breed them in any number they like and unleash them upon the world when they reach high capability to make damage, ie. upon adulthood.
- chung8123 2y ago
  I think mosquitos are the most dangerous.
  - trhway 2y ago
    mosquitos aren't threatening the whole planet. Humans do. And humans do push mosquitos out in many areas while i don't know any area where mosquitos had been able to push humans out. Humans decimate uncountable other species. Mosquitos kill 700K humans in year. That is about yearly toll of just the war in Ukraine. Humans directly kill 475K of other humans yearly, ie. homicides, and 1.35M by cars, and multitude of other indirect ways. And it is very easy to defend yourself against mosquitos - just apply repellent. There is no such easy way to defend yourself against humans.

by madars 2y ago

dgfitz 2y ago

This article doesn’t say it but I’d bet 20 bucks that legislation is fucking useless.

anothername12 2y ago

I would bet more. My home owner’s insurance comes with a section on what dogs I can’t own under the terms of the insurance. It’s a couple dozen specific breeds, not just pit bulls.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
I include a similar section in my residential real estate leases. I am simply not willing to accept the unnecessary financial, operational, and reputational risk as a housing provider.

bastawhiz 2y ago

I'm extremely sympathetic to folks who have absolutely delightful pit bulls. But the numbers simply don't lie. Pass legislation that creates high mandatory minimum fines for dog attacks on postal workers, and require that home insurers are responsible to pay. Allow and encourage communities to pass ordinances that require home insurance for owners of certain breeds. Require breeders to receive certification that buyers have notified their insurer of the purchase of a dog (regardless of whether it's covered). As soon as there's a financial disincentive to own one of these dogs, the number of owners will drop off dramatically. The first few years will be tough as many people give up their animals, but the are dogs that should never have been bred in the first place. It's heartbreaking but necessary, especially when you look at the consequences of unchecked ownership of dangerous dog breeds. Edit: Really curious why y'all are downvoting. You don't agree that dangerous dogs are dangerous? Or that you should be financially responsible for the risks associated with your animals? Really, what's the disagreement?

major505 2y ago
the problem is deciding what is a pitbull. Thers lots of races and dogs that are noit that got thrown in the mix. Is like gun legislation. Everything is an AR for politicians. If they are going legislate against a dog race is better to weight limit. Personally I agree with you that the better way is to make owner of aggressive dogs responsible by their pets behavior and make them pay fines or even jail time depending of the gravity of the attack. Now for breeds that should never been breed in first place, i would put pugs and Bulldogs on the list.
- bastawhiz 2y ago
  A simple DNA test can decide whether a dog "is" (percentage wise) a breed. A dog that's 30% pit decidedly has the characteristics of a dangerous breed. 5%, probably not. The goal isn't to be perfect, it's to make ownership complexity reflect the risk. It's inviable to outlaw a breed altogether at this point. If folks don't buy dangerous dogs because they're expensive to own, the market dries up and the breeders stop breeding.
  - major505 2y ago
    but here it is. dangerous dogs are a relative term. I saw this before. with dobermans, then rotwailers... I prefer people to be free to get whatever dog they want, as long as they accept the responsability for it. I have a big dog, a mixed race with more than 40kg. Shes swweet, but when out the house shes always with a chocke colar, because you never know how a dog can react in new situations. This is taking responsability for your dogs actions. I would also agree to ban big dogs from dog parks. Because theres always fights in dog parks.
    - bastawhiz 2y ago
      > This is taking responsability for your dogs actions. Wearing a choke collar isn't a fix in the slightest. Dogs can dig, they can bust out windows, they can slip out the door. Hell, they can rip their leash out of your hands. My uncle's dog pulled my grandmother down some concrete steps, resulting in a hospital stay. Taking responsibility is paying a real, material cost up front when you get the dog and being held responsible for taking the necessary precautions (e.g., by your insurance company). If you want a dog that's risky, taking responsibility should be a sobering ongoing burden that's non-optional. If you don't want that burden, pick a smaller dog.

andrewla 2y ago

The attack specifically mentioned in the article was an Alsation (in the US called a German Shepherd). Though not typically included in breed-specific legislation I think there is good data to suggest that they are in the top five for dog attacks resulting in serious injury. EDIT: the linked report from the postal workers union [1] cites specifically the underenforcement of the Dangerous Dog Act [2], which does not affect German Shepherds in its current form, so would not help this case. [1] https://cwue5.org/2024/07/12/rm-cwu-national-dog-awareness-week-1-7-july-2024-and-message-to-new-labour-government/ https://cwue5.org/2024/07/12/rm-cwu-national-dog-awareness-w... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Dogs_Act_1991 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Dogs_Act_1991

lenerdenator 2y ago
German Shepherds are a great example of a good dog breed that is taken up by people that "just love them" who don't give the dog what it needs to be happy. GSDs must have their daily exercise and stimulation. If they don't get it, they get restless and anxious and begin to freak out and get aggressive. They're not meant to sit in a terrace house in England or American apartment.
- andrewla 2y ago
  This is a common refrain from fans of all breeds. I’m not sure that I buy it. The null hypothesis is that the “proper stimulation” correlation with “propensity to attack” is a function of population prevalence. There are simply more dogs that don’t receive the “proper stimulation” than dogs that do (especially with True Scotsman-style goalpost moving) so they are overrepresented in attacks. But anecdotally we’ve seen the testimony across all breeds - “my dog is so gentle and likes to play with children, I can’t imagine where this attack came from”. I’d have to have some serious data on non-attack-involved dogs before I’d consider rejecting the null hypothesis. In any sort of analytic consideration here the first thing to look at is whether the breed is capable of causing grievous harm. Temperament second, and treatment/training third. And of course overall prevalence. But in terms of the policy decision around breed-specific legislation all that really matters is the number of attacks.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bdcravens 2y ago

As the owner of two pit mixes, I'm biased, but I acknowledge statistics, and recognize that mine may be atypically gentle. The issue of course is a lot of BSL is too wide in scope. There's a big difference between a 70 pound Staffy and a 35 pound APBT-lab mix, and that's not just limited to size and strength.

eldaisfish 2y ago
dog genetics are probabilities. Your dogs are likely able to suppress their instinct but find the right trigger and your dogs are very likely to be ripping out an animal’s throat, including a human’s. BSL works because it is also based on probabilities, specifically the probability that a group of closely related dog breeds are all likely to exhibit the same behaviour. The problem with pit bull type dogs is the breeding that makes them attack a target’s most sensitive region - the neck. Better to have all related breeds removed that run the risk of yet another child dying because someone could not be arsed to contrôle their dog.
- RajT88 2y ago
  Can confirm. My dog is the sweetest thing (a mutt, mostly Australian shepherd) but she is ready to murder when she sees a possum or raccoon. A threatening person I have little doubt she would have a go at.
  - bdcravens 2y ago
    Dachshunds are the same way, as they are bred to be hunters.
- hw-guy 2y ago
  I agree. Pitbulls should be regarded as a public health threat like smallpox or the aedes aegypti mosquito, and eradicated.
- bdcravens 2y ago
  [flagged]

fwip 2y ago

[flagged]

liveoneggs 2y ago
All of these are full of weasels. Sometimes it's not a "pitbull" because it's a "staffy" or a "bully" or a various mix with presa canario/dogo argentino. It is pretty much always a fighting breed/mix, with the general strong-jaw/short-hair/large-head look. I don't think it's a mistake that the vast majority of dogs in my local humane society are now these types of dogs.
- observationist 2y ago
  They're no more aggressive than other breeds. Pit bulls, specifically, are among the calmest and most temperamentally stable breeds across many studies, and from what I can tell, nearly always in the top 20 of ~200 other breeds considered. Dog breeding for fighting has very little to do with temperament and a whole lot to do with physiology and intelligence. They have very strong neck and jaw muscles, and are very large. That means the stakes for aggression are much higher. Smaller dogs are more likely to be aggressive and neurotic, and can legitimately take more work to train and socialize. Larger dogs, across the board, regardless of specific breed, cause more damage when they attack. The lockjaw myth and killer instinct myth are just that - myths. The statistics of dog attacks and fatalities are woven into a complex tapestry of human behaviors and circumstances - demonizing a particular breed is about as stupid and kneejerk an argument as can be made. https://spartacuslawfirm.com/top-car-models-with-the-most-duis-a-surprising-list-for-drivers/ https://spartacuslawfirm.com/top-car-models-with-the-most-du... The Acura NSX has the most DUIs associated with it. That's probably due to the culture around people who want those cars, their socio-economic conditions, the level of enforcement on that demographic, the overall number of cars made available for purchase, the level of marketing, how the marketing was targeted, and so on, and so forth. DUIs being associated with that particular car has nothing to do with Acura NSX being more or less likely to cause the driver to be drunk. More attacks associated with pit bulls have nothing to do with the breed except at a superficial level. All sorts of cultural baggage and irresponsible human behavior underpins every dog attack, and banning a breed of dog isn't going to impact the rate of dog attacks in the slightest. Weight limits tied to graduated licensing such that someone has to demonstrate they can be responsible before owning a potentially dangerous animal might be reasonable. If you want a Saint Bernard, you have to demonstrate the resources and capacity to handle it responsibly, etc. If someone doesn't have the resources or time, they've got no business owning the animal.

seabird 2y ago

Breed specific legislation isn't a real solution. Pit bulls are one entry on a long list of strong dogs that require good training and a careful owner. There's plenty of other breeds antisocial assholes or uneducated owners can't and/or won't control to replace them. Dog attacks need to be treated like a negligent discharge. When that happens, you will immediately see a massive drop in the number of people with poorly trained dogs they can't handle.

InitialLastName 2y ago

This is about the UK, where pit bulls have been banned for 30 years. Either the BSL isn't helping, or the breeds at fault aren't banned. Reading the article itself, the breeds mentioned are: alsatians, greyhounds, bull mastiffs, and chihuahuas.

trhway 2y ago

>I'd bet $20 that breed-specific legislation would help. Most people can't handle a pet tiger The most dangerous animal is humans, yet we allow people to freely breed them in any number they like and unleash them upon the world when they reach high capability to make damage, ie. upon adulthood.

chung8123 2y ago
I think mosquitos are the most dangerous.
- trhway 2y ago
  mosquitos aren't threatening the whole planet. Humans do. And humans do push mosquitos out in many areas while i don't know any area where mosquitos had been able to push humans out. Humans decimate uncountable other species. Mosquitos kill 700K humans in year. That is about yearly toll of just the war in Ukraine. Humans directly kill 475K of other humans yearly, ie. homicides, and 1.35M by cars, and multitude of other indirect ways. And it is very easy to defend yourself against mosquitos - just apply repellent. There is no such easy way to defend yourself against humans.