I have been working on a very in depth post about Calgary and Toronto and the differences between their two very different mindsets when it comes to managing dog bites. Toronto is known for its BSL while Calgary is famous and often cited by many BNL advocates for the success of it breed-neutral approach.
This post has experienced quite some delay due to time constraints and misfortune, which I apologise for. I have gotten quite some help from our newest addition to the mod team u/Synclock but he has been busy lately, putting this post on the backburner. Big thanks to him, he has been an amazing help and his input was of immense value.
I owe you guys this massive post after announcing it and saying I would do it. So don't think that I have forgotten! On the contrary, lately, I have spent a considerable number of hours on trying to finish this post. But before I post this, I would like to know how many of you would be interested to read such a large work and how many of you are actually interested. Another thing which I am very curious to know is what stance you are on right now and what each of you thinks about this complex topic right now.
Please fill in the poll underneath and share your opinion with me and the rest of the sub! If enough people would like to still see this quite large and complex post, I will release it early.
According to many animal welfare originations, including the SPCA, there is no proof that Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is effective. The SPCA even claims that the CDC is against BSL, though unsurprisingly (given their clear bias in favor of Pits), there is no citation or link to any official CDC statement. There also seems to be a number of issues with the SPCA’s argument against BSL, including that not all dog bites are reported, as there is often no injury (ok, who cares if an Aussie tags your pant leg?), that identification of a specific breed is impossible just by looking at a dog, and that BSL is ineffective anyway (not true according to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3664365/ )
I have found that even the White House cites the CDC’s opposition to BSL in their own stance against it, but I would like to find the actual source as I feel the CDC is less likely to be biased than Animal Welfare groups when it comes to dangerous breeds. I’d love to see any reliable studies for or against BSL.
I definitely believe there needs to be a solution implemented as 900 people visit the emergency room each day in the US due to dog bites (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347620308246#bib3 ) but I’m interested in knowing what measures could be taken, and if the most popular legislative measure, BSL, is a viable option.
I love this sub because I keep seeing dogs that look nothing like Am Pits, yet the breed makes up a fair chunk of their ancestry.
A bit of background: In the UK, Am Pits and Pit mixes are banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Here, if you announced that you'd discovered your dog was X% Am Pit, your pooch could be taken away and thrown into a kennel for an indeterminate amount of time (e.g. for longer than a month). More frequently, this happens when a hateful neighbour reports you for having a large bull-breed cross (e.g a Staffy/mastiff).
In this stressful kennel environment, alone and scared, your dog would be 'tested' to see if it is aggressive, and physically measured to an old breed standard that was never even accepted by the American Kennel Club; e.g. phrenology for dogs. If your dog is thought to be aggressive, it will be killed. Even if it passes the test, your pet still isn't free: it can never again enjoy off-lead exercise, and must wear a muzzle whenever it is off your property (again, this is after the animal has been assessed to be completely safe).
The RSPCA, the UK's main animal charity, firmly opposes Breed Specific Legislation, partly because the law has done nothing to reduce dog attacks, but it has stigmatised bull-breeds. Here's their 32-page report on the topic - A Dog's Dinner; a shorter page on the topic is available here.
Which brings me back to this sub: Can we turn this post into a record of Unlikely American Pit Bulls? If you were surprised to discover that your dog has Am Pit ancestry, this is the place to share a photo.
If you live in the UK and have been affected by Breed Specific Legislation, tell us about it. Did you later do a DNA test only to discover they weren't a Pit? What happened next?
I've lived in military housing but not recently. Glad to see this policy.
https://preview.redd.it/zo7coum8k1b71.jpg?width=930&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dd42a8cbd51d6bebf06c3888b9ca6a3fe9da16c6
Soooooo at times I quietly and oh-so respectfully creep around pro-pit forums just to see what nonsensical bullshit they're pushing out and as of late, I've seen more than a few posts listing about many of the municipalities nationwide that are considering repealing these measures. Naturally, the muppets view this as a big win for their "advocacy", but after some thought, I was wondering if repealing said measures can ultimately backfire on their behalf and work in OUR favor.
How you ask? As grim and horrific as this initially sounds, hear me out: If there are absolutely NO restrictions around pitbull ownership, it's natural to think that their ownership rate and public visibility will increase on some tangible level. Along with this increased ownership comes an increased level of "close calls", serious maulings and actually deaths. Is it outside of the realm of reason to think that there can be such an increase in these type of incidents where local and federal government is literally left with no choice but to address this issue with EFFECTIVE legislation? It's terrible to think about all of pain & suffering that would need to be endured in order to solicite a real response but it seems like a natural collateral consequence of repealing such measures to begin with.
I think that in order to get to a place where the government is really going to look at banning shitbulls, it's going to take something catastrophic to happen - Whether that's the child of a powerful politician or celebrity being killed or the frequency of deaths going up 7-fold where you just can't deflect/victim blame deaths away, I'm not sure. I just know something needs to happen and happen now. If we can get the landshark cult to contribute to their own undoing, count me in.
Author: Rebecca F. Wisch Place of Publication: Michigan State University College of Law Publish Year: 2021 Primary Citation: Animal Legal & Historical Center
This document lists the states that prohibit the regulation of dogs by local governments based on breed, commonly known as breed-specific legislation.
The laws are divided into two general categories: (1) states that prohibit breed-specific legislation (BSL) in all animal regulation (9 states); and (2) states that only prohibit BSL in dangerous/vicious dog laws (15 states). In total, there are approximately 21 states with some sort of anti-BSL legislation (combining both (1) and (2) together, and not counting DE and IL twice because both have such laws).
The pertinent part of the legislation is included in this list as well as a link to the actual laws. A further distinction has to be made in the application of some of these laws in the dangerous dog category. Some laws state that municipalities may not regulate dangerous dogs based solely on breed while other laws simply say that breed cannot be used to prove a dangerous dog declaration.
I'm getting ready to post something here about towns who have repealed their Breed Specific Legislation (USA only) in the past five or ten years. One example I'm working on now is Hazel Park, Michigan, but I'm interested in following how or why Breed Specific Legislation was introduced in the first place, how it was later repealed (I'll be attempting to reach local community members who voted to appeal it) and I'll be looking at the specifics.
I'd like to feature five towns or so, but maybe more.
If you have lived in an area that has repealed BSL and you'd like to share an anonymous story, please comment or PM.
I'm sure this has been posted before on this sub. If not as its own topic, then as part of another topic. Along with Denver, CO, Prince George's County, MD has prohibited pit bulls. However, the battle for BSL was not as widely publicized as Denver's battle. It should be noted that Denver STILL HAS BSL it just doesn't openly ban pit bulls.
> Since 1997, Pit Bulls have been outlawed in Prince George's County, the second most populous county in Maryland, bordering the Eastern side of Washington DC. It is the only jurisdiction in the D.C. region that has a breed-specific ban, yet hundreds continue to be impounded by Animal Control every year.
I'm sure that the reason hundreds keep being impounded is the owner and not the breed (/s), but the real questions are 1) how do these dogs keep flying under the radar in the first place 2) are there people in this county breeding them and why isn't more being done to target these breeders?
At any rate, with the ban being enforced as early as 1997, the Maryland High Court then ruled in 2012 with Tracey v Solesky that pit bulls were "inherently dangerous" and imposed strict liability on pit bull owners.
>In a 4-3 opinion, the Maryland Court of Appeals (the highest court in Maryland), decided in the case, Tracey vs. Solesky, that victims of pit bulls do not need to prove that the owners should have known that their dog was dangerous, but rather the sheer fact that a dog is a pit bull is enough to hold the owners liable (and by “pit bull,” the Court of Appeals has said that this decision also applies to dogs who are part pit bull.) This is different as to how Maryland law applies to all other dogs. In Maryland, we have what is known as the “one bite law.” In other words, in Maryland, if any other type of dog bite goes to court, then that dog owner is not held responsible unless the victim can prove that the dog owner knew that his/her dog is dangerous (such as by a previous bite or other inappropriate aggressive behavior).
>
>Imposing strict liability to dogs is not unusual. Thirty-five (35) other states impose some kind of strict liability on dog owners, regardless of the dog’s breed or appearance. However, the new law in Maryland is different because this Court of Appeals case imposes strict liability to just one type of dog, the pit bull.
[https://andalmanflynn.com/blogs/criminal-law/md-court-of-appeals-lays-down-law-on-pit-bulls/](https://andalmanflynn.com/blogs/cri
... keep reading on reddit ➡
I’m sure it’s come up here before, but why aren’t legislators pushing for a law that bans dangerous breeds, UNLESS the owner proves the dog isn’t a threat to others?
Say, passes a yearly CGC test, has a fence or appropriate tie-out and isn’t able to roam loose, is spayed/neutered unless the owner has a breeding license.
I have a German Shepherd/Dutch shepherd mix, and German Shepherds are almost always on the list of breeds people want to see banned. I know I would be pissed if someone wanted to ban me from having my dog, who is a member of my family, is professionally trained, vetted, and cared for and will never be a risk to anyone, but I can also agree that in the wrong hands he could become reactive/aggressive and is fully capable of doing damage to someone or something if he really wanted to.
So if pit owners are sooooo convinced it’s all in how you raise them, wouldn’t they be eager to put their dogs to the test to prove they are as sweet and harmless as they say they are? I would put my dog up to that challenge any day of the week to prove I should be allowed to own him.
