I read an article in the New York Times today about how many public housing projects in New York City are banning certain dogs from living in the apartments, forcing hundreds of owners to get rid of their family pets. The law bans all pit bulls, Rottweilers, and Dobermen pinschers, in addition to any dog (save service dogs) who are expected to weigh more than 25 lbs as an adult.
This is just another law targeting certain breeds of animals. The city of Aurora in Colorado no longer allows Pit Bulls and certain other breeds (unless a license is obtained, the person has a $100,000 renters insurance and has the dog spayed/neutered and microchipped). Many apartments no longer allow large animals, or specifically restrict pit bulls, rottweilers, german shepards, and other large-breed dogs.
Why do I care? I have for the past 15 or so years, been around Rottweilers and German Shepards. My baby sister is the same age as our dog now, almost 12 years old. She's a rotty, and has never attacked anyone, save for barking at people who annoy her (such as my uncle when he grabs her back paws). She's the biggest baby I know, and the worst damage she'll do is accidentally scratch you when she wants to go out (but only if you're not paying attention to her; she whines endlessly before that). She's great with kids, though she'll try to eat other animals, and she's very protective; she'll put herself between me or my mom and someone she doesn't now who comes into our house.
So when people ban these animals from living in certain areas, it makes me sad. A dog is only as good as its owner, and if a dog is abused, of course its going to snap at people. But if a dog is raised properly (and doesn't have rabies), there's no reason it should attack. But those who raise these dogs to be aggressive and fighters give the rest of us owners a bad name when the dogs go an attack someone.
Most of the time, it's pretty easy to keep a dog of one of these restricted breeds; a special license just needs to be obtained. Of course, that license can get expensive fast, and when people can no longer afford to keep these animals, they go to shelters. Much of the time, the dogs just get euthanized, because no one else wants them thanks to their poor reputation. Of the 113 dogs surrendered thanks to the ordinance in NYC, 69 were killed. Those poor owners.
A dog is only as good as its owner,
I think these rules don't just materialize out of the blue. They are the result of a history of bad experiences. Apparently there are enough bad owners of these particular breeds where large segments of society have decided it is not worth the risk. Actually, there are probably plenty of bad owners of minature poodles too but unlike a minature poodle, you can't just punt a crazed rotweiller out of the ballpark.
Unfortunately the bad dog owners don't have a brand on their forehead that makes it easy to distinguish them from the good owners. (I would not be horribly opposed to applying such a mark but it could only be done AFTER a tragedy.) Lacking and easy means to distinguish the good from the bad, it is easier and prudent to outlaw them altogether. An apartment owner who permits these types of animals risks taking on liability if one of them decides to chew up a child.
Actually, there are probably plenty of bad owners of minature poodles too but unlike a minature poodle, you can't just punt a crazed rotweiller out of the ballpark.
Ironically, the most mentally unstable breed is the Dachshund (wiener dog), and many other small dog breeds, such as the Springer Spaniel are also notorious for actual mental problems (Springer Syndrome, which actually looks like a sort of canine psychosis).
I think these rules don't just materialize out of the blue. They are the result of a history of bad experiences. Apparently there are enough bad owners of these particular breeds where large segments of society have decided it is not worth the risk.
There are a number of problems with that idea, however.
First and foremost is the fact that the vast majority of dogs are not purebred. This means that "by breed" statistics are inherently flawed.
In regards to what is commonly known as the American Pit Bull Terrier, it's actually not a matter of the breed doing something wrong, it's a matter of a number of different breeds that may do something wrong and are wrongly called "pit bulls" by people, and, worse, the news. Nearly two dozen different breeds, in fact, are mistaken for "pit bulls." If you could break down the statistics that say "pit bull" into their actual breeds, you'd probably get far different numbers.
To say that a "pit bull type dog" bit someone is about as specific as saying a Terrier dog bit someone. Okay, was it a Jack Russel Terrier, a Scottish Terrier, an American Staffordshire Terrier, a Rat Terrier, an English Staffordshire Terrier, or one of other dozen or so Terrier breeds?
Interestingly enough, the APBT actually has an average score of 85.3% on the American Temperament Test Society's dog temperament test, almost a full percent better than the Golden Retriever (and a full 6% better than the Miniature Poodle ;) ). (Anything above 80% is considered a good score, as it's above the overall average.)
Pit Bulls are most targeted because it's known that they're the main choice for dog fighting (which is a felony in 48 states and still a crime in the other two). Ironically, what many people don't realize is that aggression toward humans is actually a flaw, even among dogs bred specifically for fighting. The last thing dog fighters want is their prize dog being aggressive toward its owner.
Then, of course, you have high-profile people like Dolphins linebacker Joey Porter, and their mentality:
In my opinion, the problem regarding dog bites is twofold. First, obviously, you have bad owners. Of course, "bad owners" is a rather broad term. In the case of dog bites, this can be as simple as not watching the dog closely enough to make sure it doesn't get off the property and make sure someone doesn't come onto the property uninvited (it's a pretty even split between on property and off property incidents), or severe enough as those who use dogs to compensate for themselves and train them to be mean.
And then there are "bad parents." See, the thing is, most dog bites involve child victims. There are two easy ways to prevent a lot of dog bites, especially with otherwise good dogs (because there are good dogs and then there are bad dogs; if a dog is a bad dog and is known to be aggressive, then the victim likely can't prevent a bite unless they can avoid the dog altogether) -- supervise the child at all times while they're around the dog or in an area that is likely to have dogs, and teach the child how to approach a dog in a non-threatening way.
For example, I got bit when I was about 7 years old. Considering how my cousin treated the dog (she would often tease him while he was chained up outside), it's likely I wouldn't have been able to do anything to prevent getting bitten (I was also the second of three people he bit). However, the way I moved was also somewhat threatening (albeit unintentionally). I tried reaching onto the top of his head, before letting him sniff and get to know me. This is often seen as an act of aggression, especially in dogs that are head shy. A less aggressive motion for me to have taken would have been to let him sniff my hand and go around the side of his head.
Many people don't know things like this, though, so they immediately blame the dog when they get bitten, even if they acted in a manner that was seen as aggressive to the dog. You then get stories of "he was just the sweetest dog, until one day he turned and bit so and so..." If you look at the situation objectively, though, what where the circumstances that led up to the bite? Was the dog growling or barking? Was he eating or drinking? Was he on a leash or in his own yard, or was he roaming? How did the victim approach the animal? Did the victim do anything that could have been seen as aggressive? In the case of children, were both the child and dog under supervision? Sometimes, the human did everything right and the dog truly was at fault. Other times, the human did something that provoked the dog, and the situation could have been prevented.
Another thing that people often forget, too, is that dogs are little more than domesticated wolves (they're actually classified as the same species and are easily capable of breeding with each other). Many dogs were also bred for very specific purposes. The German Shepard was bred to be an active ("living wall") herd guarding dog. The English Shepard, Australian Cattle Dog, and Border Collie were also herding dogs. As such, they're very protective of what they consider their "herd," which is often their human family. German Shepards are extremely active protectors, and it's largely for this reason that they're the typical police dog breed.
Many of the "dangerous" breeds are also extremely smart. This makes them extremely easy to train, which is both a good thing and a bad thing. It's good in that it's easy to train them to do things you want them to do (sit, stay, lie down, etc), but it's bad in that it is also very easy to accidentally train them bad habits. Their intelligence also means they can get bored easily, which is often why they get into trouble regarding things like chewing things and breaking out. If they had difficulty ranking like they do with fish, most of the "dangerous" breeds would be considered "advanced" not because they're "dangerous," but because they're extremely intelligent and therefore require good knowledge of the breed and dog training in general.
Lacking and easy means to distinguish the good from the bad, it is easier and prudent to outlaw them altogether.
Why not just have a system that if you have a dog that shows signs of aggression, regardless of breed, you have to have a special license to keep that dog? If the dog is involved in an attack in which you are held liable (ie - you can't be held liable if someone breaks in and the dog attacks, but could be held liable if the dog got off your property), you get your license, and therefore your dog, taken away.
Banning a particular breed does about as much good as banning just about anything else (you see how well that's going with the "war on drugs"). For example, Miami-Dade county has major issues with dog fighting. As a result, it is illegal to have a Pit Bull at all in the county (though someone is finally doing something about it), yet they still have over a dozen cases of dog fighting per year.
"Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns," is the common saying among 2nd Amendment supporters. The same goes for dog breeds, too.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Very informative post. It is clear that you have an excellent command of this topic.
The original blog also mentioned that many of the bans pertained to all dogs over 25 lbs. I think that is a reasonable non-breed specific objective criteria that can be enforced.
Any dog regardless of size can be taught to be mean. And some of the smaller dogs are more likely to be mentally unstable. But the size of a dog is what gives it the ability to be dangerous. I suppose a dachshund (or a similarly sized mixed breed) could inflict some serious harm on a small child but you don't hear about it very often. I'm not sure if cocker spaniels average over 25 lbs or not. I suspect they are borderline on that measure. For the most part, small dogs, no matter how vicious and aggressive can be overwhelmed by almost any human with a swift kick. That is just not the case with larger dogs which as you say are essentially domesticated wolves and have the capability of bringing down prey substantially larger than a human.
That is just not the case with larger dogs which as you say are essentially domesticated wolves and have the capability of bringing down prey substantially larger than a human.
To clarify: even the small dogs are still related to wolves. They're all canis lupus familiaris, whether you're talking about a Czechoslovakian Wolfdog or a Chinese Crested.
The original blog also mentioned that many of the bans pertained to all dogs over 25 lbs. I think that is a reasonable non-breed specific objective criteria that can be enforced.
I agree that a weight limit is a reasonable way to go as far as restrictions, and there are a number of reasons for an apartment complex to restrict the weight of animals. I don't necessarily agree with 25 pounds, though, except in small apartments (it doesn't make much sense to me to have a 25lb weight limit in 1000+sqft townhouses), primarily because I've seen large Jack/Parson Russel Terriers, and hell, even cats exceed that weight.
And some of the smaller dogs are more likely to be mentally unstable. But the size of a dog is what gives it the ability to be dangerous. I suppose a dachshund (or a similarly sized mixed breed) could inflict some serious harm on a small child but you don't hear about it very often.
Indeed, but, unfortunately, what many people don't realize is that even the family's 4-pound Pomeranian is, in fact, capable of killing. Cases like that are why I've always stressed not leaving a child of any age alone in a room with any size dog (at least until the child is big enough to punt the dog across the room ;) ). I think it happens more to older children and with bigger dogs because adults generally default to having their infant in their sight at all times, whereas older children are often allowed to do things outside of parent supervision, and so the risk levels are different with the two groups.
Very informative post. It is clear that you have an excellent command of this topic.
Thank you. It is a topic that I am passionate about. I love dogs and have had large dogs for several years (my step dad trains hunting dogs, so we always had four or five dogs when I was a teenager). I've especially loved the breeds many consider dangerous or "scary", and would love to see a lot of the myths dispelled, because they really are great animals.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
with all of these posts. I basically agree with Jack.
Assault rifle bans seem to be working just fine. I'm suggesting an analogy, but I'll admit it isn't quite accurate. Clearly more citizens benefit from owning big dogs than heavy weapons. Drugs, dogs, and guns all have legitimate uses and they all have dangers. It comes down to a cost-benefit analysis that depends on how much you trust the population and how easy it is to enforce a ban.
Hence why I used the war on drugs, because a lot of people agree that it's been largely an effort in futility, even more so than any of the gun restrictions (plus 2nd Amendment stuff turns into a debate on its own).
The same goes with banning a particular breed of dog as with the war on drugs. What makes the issue even worse is that a lot of the owners are denied due process, and it's the dogs that pay with their life. Many dogs that are confiscated because they're supposedly a banned breed are euthanized before the owner can prove otherwise or prove they were in compliance if there isn't an outright ban (in many cases, the dog is put down within a week, sometimes as fast as three days).
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Wow...I actually can not believe German Shepards made the list.
There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic.~- Anais Nin
Yeah, they're actually considered "dangerous dogs" by most apartment complexes. It's hard to find a complex that's actually friendly toward German Shepherd Dogs.
It's sad, really, because they're great dogs and the breed as a whole is actually a great family dog, both great with kids and protective.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
It's sad, really, because they're great dogs and the breed as a whole is actually a great family dog, both great with kids and protective.
I had heard that was what pit bulls were originally bred for as well. It's why they're called Nanny Dogs.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
Yep, Pit Bulls were/are often referred to as Nanny Dogs because they were also great around kids and great family dogs. The APBT terrier and its British counterpart, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier were actually originally bred for bull baiting, but when that was deemed inhumane and outlawed, they and their fellow breed, the American Staffordshire Terrier, were used as guard, farm, and hunting dogs. As a result, they're brave, strong, and protective, traits that sometimes get trained into meanness and aggression.
Random fact: Jack the brindle dog from Little House on the Prairie and Petey from the Little Rascals, as well as Helen Keller's pet, were all Pit Bulls. President Roosevelt also had a Pit.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
My condolances for those dogs. But here's the cold hard truth! Because people can't properly raise a dog, the responsiblity falls upon the city, the state, the government. Yes. Because of these people the responsible owners suffer but take into account how when it becomes a problem, law has to jump in. Would you rather risk the peoples' safety or still have your dog?
Another thing is the breed regulations, notice how those are the most aggressive dog breeds there are? If you don't know how to raise them properly (which most people don't) the dog will become everyone's problem.
About the apartments, I say that was a good move. People think they can raise a huge dog in an apartment. Huh uh! it is not happening. A dog that size needs room. If you have a dog underexercised, what do you have? Usually an obese, unbalanced dog! Hello!
The most aggressive dog breeds are the poodles and chihuahuas. That statement right there proves my point that these animals have a bad rep. Rottweilers and pit bulls are great family pets because they're very loyal and protective. My rotty will put herself between me and any stranger, and just watch them until she's sure they mean me no harm.
And we raised our rotty in a condo. Our house was smaller than the condo we had. The thing about apartments and condos is that because they don't have back yards, you can't just let the dog out when it needs to go to the bathroom, you actually have to take the dog for a walk, and hence get it exercise.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Sorry. I have worked with a dog behavioralist for a couple of months. And it seems that almost every open door dog boarding or daycare will not take pitbulls and in some places rotties. Sorry but it's in their mentality and breeding. Yes! If they undertake good training and a loving home they are wonderful pets. I'm not saying that. What I am saying is what makes them so dangerous is their handlers and if their handlers even know how to handle them. Their size is also another issue. I myself (after worked in a vet) have been bit 2 times by a chihauahu and it did hurt but no blood was drawn. Now take that aggressive much more larger dog attacking someone like a chihauhau does and you will have more then a bite with blood drawn. See the difference? Yes I know there is no equality among breeds. I myself have a huskie and pit bull mix. The main aspect is once you own a larger dog, you have to take more responsibilities. And as for the poodle being aggressive. Never have ran into one in all my experiences but they have the credit of being the most smartest.
First of all, medically speaking aggression is not measured by how much damage a dog can do when it bites, but by a dog's behavior, mental stability, and likeliness for it to turn on its owner, in which case, its the smaller breeds that have repeatedly proven to be far more aggressive than the large breeds.
I recommend you look at the comments I've already made, as they include various statistics from the agencies that specialize in measuring canine behavior, as well as articles that demonstrate why dogs such as Pit Bulls and Rottweilers have the reputation they have.
Dog borders and shelters will often not take Pit Bulls (and to a lesser extent, Rottweilers, Dobermans, and German Shepard Dogs) because of their reputation, not because of any inherent aggressiveness in the breed.
And it seems that almost every open door dog boarding or daycare will not take pitbulls and in some places rotties. Sorry but it's in their mentality and breeding.
Actually, even a Pit Bull bred by dog fighters isn't bred to attack humans. It's contrary to the goals of dog fighters to have dogs that are human-aggressive.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge