Breed bans

[kady05]

Originally Posted by elegy

But yes, who is to say the dog is a pit bull and not a boxer/lab x? There are so many gray areas and so many what ifs?

Right. I don't like the idea of dog parks either, and really wouldn't care if Pit Bulls weren't allowed in them, but where do you draw the line? There are SO many dogs out there who "look" like Pit Bulls that aren't.

And, how would one enforce it? Would the city have to have someone at a dog park at all times to monitor which dogs entered? I know at my local park, you're supposed to get a license from the park to enter, but you CAN just walk in.

[Fran101]

The bully breed ban was considered at my local park (because pitbulls are banned in the whole city anyway it didn't really rub anyone the wrong way more than anything else)

but at the end of the day.. it required a specially trained "dog person" to be at the park during opening hours to enforce the ban.

So, it was decided that instead of the breed ban. The money was pushed around toward having someone there to just enforce park rules/dog play and remove any dog that shows aggressive behavior.

The guy there now is watchful and has a catch pole, break stick, power hose.. and frankly, I think he is useful.
BUT, big BUT here.. it's a private park and plenty of money from the surrounding buildings had to go to get this guy on a salary (not to mention his equipment and the camera that was put up to catch people not picking up poop as well as see who started fights etc..). Dog parks usually just don't have that at their disposal.

Oh and he also gives tickets for not picking up poop and makes sure all dogs that enter have their license tags (given by the buildings we live in..so they are all properly vax and live in the area at least) which is awesome..because there are very rarely dog in the park whom we don't know.

So while I agree that in THEORY the bully breed ban in parks MIGHT be a good idea.
without the proper education/funds.. it's a waste of time.

and with the proper education/funds you wouldn't HAVE TO have a breed ban.. you could just have someone there to keep the peace for all dogs.

[Danefied]

There are so many mutts out there a breed ban makes no sense to me. Its all about knowing your individual dog. And even the safest dog is subject to predatory drift. Has nothing to do with being a “dangerous” breed.

[Aescleah]

I strongly agree with fran actully he or she could deal with small children and bone headed parents too and create a.job helps the community in general

Ashley

[crazedACD]

For the record, I used to spend a lot of time at dog parks in Idiotville FL. From what I saw with pit bulls, when they first bring the dog in the park it was obvious whether or not the dog was going to be appropriate. Most that had issues immediately removed their dog. To be honest the dogs I saw most that were problematic were GSDs and Husky type dogs. They seem fine at first until they get challenged or especially with GSDs, when a dog comes around their owner.

[Miakoda]

I will never agree with breed bans. NEVER.

[Kilter]

The ban is actually at my work. It's a kennel, and the dogs are usually in playgroups for the day (monitored), and in suites at night. They've taken pitties before, usually without issues, but a month ago had an issue with one attacking and injuring a dog through a fence. No signs of an issue, no growling or fence fighting in the weeks before this, then a huge vet bill to repair the dog's ear. When there has been an issue it's like that. Other breeds usually have been fine, or if there's a fight, there's no blood or major damage.

With the current setup there's just too many risks even if that sort of dog was kept totally separated, there's no way to keep the dog totally isolated - when dogs are coming in and out they 'can' stick their faces in enough for another dog to snap, and feet/tails/small heads can go under the fences inside the building. The dogs are moved usually off leash to pens through a set of gates and isles, so they go past other dogs in the process.

When they expand they are going to make some more traditional style kennels for that sort of dog, but for now it's just not safe.

[AdrianneIsabel]

We have a pit bull at my work that is our go-to to play with almost any dog. I still don't believe the breed belongs on dog parks but I refuse to support breed bans. If I did I would be damning any breed with teeth.

[AdrianneIsabel]

If your work is not educated or capable of housing potentially aggressive dogs then I think they should ban then but I think it should be an admission of fault on the caretakers part, not the breed.

We train, we refuse to run 40+ dog play groups, so we're a different world but we accept pit bulls with excitement because we're educated in containment, control, management, and know our limitations as well as theirs.

It's just frustrating when a human screws up and says "well the dog caused it." No, you failed to be there to supervise interaction or contain the dogs properly when unable to supervise and now an entire breed gets another bad rap.

[Pops2]

in those specific circumstances I agree. bull breeds descended from match dogs often do not give any threat display to warn the handler they are about to jack up another dog. it goes back to their breeding and is also a huge part of why people always say "he never did anything like this before & he never showed any sign of aggression." most other breeds will give a clear sign before hand, bullbreeds might.what signs they do give are often not understood by even experienced dog people. and this is a liability issue. this is also why i think anyone who says "it's all in how you raise them" about APBTs, Amstaff, Staffybull, EBT, and even ABs (probably working terriers & sighthounds too) should not own any of these breeds. they are obviously ignorant of the effect of purposeful breeding on successive generations.