Lorrie Shaw

Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 12:28 a.m.

Thanks, everyone, for your comments. It is to say the least an important topic that a lot of folks are passionate about, and for good reason. There are a lot of facets to Breed Specific Legislation, and many municipalities are looking at them. There's a lot to consider as far as pet ownership goes, and it will be interesting to see how each community who is considering legislation - including spay/neuter requirements. Again, thanks to everyone for your thoughts. They are all very interesting.

julieswhimsies

Wed, Jan 19, 2011 : 9:06 p.m.

Most dog trainers will tell you, when a dog behaves badly, it is not the dog....but the owner's fault. Owning a dog is a responsibility. Leash laws should be enforced for all breeds...not a specific breed. It makes no sense. I always have my Malamute on a lead, or in our fenced-in backyard. I won't be moving to Saginaw anytime, as well.

kay

Wed, Jan 19, 2011 : 7:19 p.m.

All dogs, regardless of breed, could have the propensity to bite. To judge or ban a breed by fear or ignorance is discriminatory and pathetic. My collie used to be on the "10 most dangerous dogs list." I don't even think she knows how to bite anybody. What is wrong with people?! Same with my pit---he doesn't even know how to get angry.

Dog Guy

Wed, Jan 19, 2011 : 7:14 p.m.

Humans have been breeding dogs for certain characteristics for millenia. Some dog owners insult their dog's breed by denying such characteristics. Denying a dog's nature to oneself is foolish and dangerous. The great majority of dog owners besmirch a few responsible owners. If I move to Saginaw, I'll strap antlers and a red nose on my dog and call it Rudolph.

JB

Wed, Jan 19, 2011 : 3:38 p.m.

@John B -- "Just ban PItbulls"? Really? Spoken like someone without a clue. There is no such thing as a "bad" breed of dog. Broad bush much people? These types of ordinances are popular because they are relatively easy to pass and uninformed people think that it's a panacea for the problem. Obviously it is not. It would be much more useful if we licensed people instead of pets. Many people are too dim-witted to own, train and take care of a pet responsibly. I would submit that most of the problems stem from irresponsible owners rather than some "bad" dog. I personally have owned many of the breeds of dogs on this list throughout my lifetime and while some breeds have different requirements than others, every dog requires training. Perhaps these communities could require a background check for the owner and various levels of dog training for the pets instead of a blanket ban or other restrictive measures that fail to solve the problem. @atnaap -- You said "Irresponsible dog owners are the problem, but it seems like dog advocates don't want to do anything about them." While I agree with the first part of your statement, the second part is completely baseless. What evidence to you have that "dog advocates don't want to do anything about" irresponsible owners? How precisely do you think "dog advocates" can do about it? It's a problem that must be solved by everyone, not merely "dog advocates" as they have no power to do so by themselves. See above for my ideas.

theodynus

Tue, Jan 18, 2011 : 9:16 p.m.

I was almost bitten by a Standard Poodle running off-leash in the park the other day. It's gotta be the tenth time this particularly dog has come rushing towards me barking aggressively. Every time I yell at the owner. This time, the owner—a presumably educated older middle-class woman—said (I am not making this up): "Don't worry! She just gets scared!" As if scared dogs don't bite! Irresponsible dog owners are the problem, but it seems like dog advocates don't want to do anything about them. If breed-specific legislation is a no-go, tell us what you think we should do. Is there anything proactive that can be done to lower the number of dog attack incidents or does everyone here think governments should be limited to simply punishing owners after the fact? Do you feel the same way about gun legislation? Driver's license requirements? Building code enforcement? Is there an animal dangerous enough that it shouldn't be in the hands of private citizens? Lions? Tigers? Bears? Where do you draw the line? As an aside, do you recognize the fact that, just because your dog has always been behaved, does not mean it will never bite someone? I've been bitten by dogs walking on their leashes here in Ann Arbor, bad enough to draw blood. "She's never done anything like that before!" was the response, after this woman got done yelling at ME for walking within six feet of her.

John B.

Tue, Jan 18, 2011 : 8:53 p.m.

The list of breeds involved is very close to the list of the top ten breeds (statisically, based on total number of people killed) that have killed (not just bitten) humans over the past twenty years or so in the USA. Pit Bulls are #1 on that list Rottweilers/ Rottweiler mixes are #2 German Shepards are #3 Huskies are #4 Malamutes are #5 Chows are #6 Dobermans are #7 St. Bernards are #8 (surprised me) Great Dane is #9 (ditto) Akita is #10 (thought it would be higher, actually, but there probably aren't zillions of them in this country, I guess). The Police use German Shepards b/c they can be vicious, look intimidating, but are very trainable. They train them extensively and keep them on a short leash until 'needed' for that reason. That said, this proposed 'solution' sounds pretty unworkable to me. Just ban Pit bulls! btw I am a long-time large-breed dog owner, so flame away....

julieswhimsies

Tue, Jan 18, 2011 : 8:51 p.m.

I strongly oppose breed specific laws or legislation. I was REALLY surprised to see Alaskan Malamutes listed as "dangerous dogs"! Are you kidding me?! My Malamute, Bree wouldn't hurt a fly. She is not people or dog aggressive. She is also a registered therapy dog. Most dog experts will tell you that the most aggressive breed is the Chihuahua.

James D'Amour

Tue, Jan 18, 2011 : 8:43 p.m.

I agree with loves_fall and bedrog here. I believe Saginaw's ordinance is ill-considered, if my own experiences as a fairly-new first-time dog owner mean anything. I know the Rottweiler has a "mean reputation" but never in all my years have I met an unfriendly Rot, and I know of one in particular who passed not long ago that was one of the sweetest creatures I have ever met. Huskies? I feel the same sentiment here as well. I think this "list of 10" was taken out of context. If Saginaw were to continue this ordinance (or if my hometown of Ann Arbor were to consider this), I would suggest they read the full report that loves_fall suggested, and place the burden of responsibility upon the owner.

bedrog

Tue, Jan 18, 2011 : 7:48 p.m.

While i am no fan of people who acquire, (for macho self image , let alone dog fighting), breeds with bad reps like pit bulls they can be nice dogs when well treated and in the right settings ( which may not include other dogs or small kids in some cases)....even after suffering abuse at the hand of bad owners from whom they've been removed. As a volunteer at the Huron Valley Humane Society, where pits comprise the bulk of adoption-eligible dogs, i urge all interested to go up an check 'em out, along with the educational materials on the breed that are prominently displayed there. I know my own prior perceptions have been altered quite bit as a result of close contact.

loves_fall

Tue, Jan 18, 2011 : 7:12 p.m.

Also, clearly the people in Saginaw didn't read the report under "Dangerous Dogs List" above. Otherwise, maybe they would have seen this nugget of wisdom on the first page: "Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840)"

loves_fall

Tue, Jan 18, 2011 : 7:08 p.m.

I'm not moving to Saginaw anytime soon! My rottie/shepherd mix is 15 and has never bitten another dog. She's gotten her Canine Good Citizen certification and behaves just fine. How many fewer dog fights/attacks would occur if owners kept their dogs leashed in public as already required? Some dogs are aggressive in ways a lot of domesticated dogs aren't, and I think it's a fair speculation to say that they're abnormally aggressive because they have been bred against the principles of domestication. (See <a href="http://cbsu.tc.cornell.edu/ccgr/behaviour/Index.htm" rel='nofollow'>http://cbsu.tc.cornell.edu/ccgr/behaviour/Index.htm</a> for some cool info on fox domestication and selective breeding.) We bred working dogs to work, including guarding owners. Maybe there should be restrictions on who gets to own them. Working dogs require a lot of obedience training, and I don't think a lot of their owners have the capacity to provide that. The result is poorly trained dogs that act out of instinct and whose owners have little to no control of them. Working dogs are wonderful animals that can provide a lot of intelligence, help, and companionship, but they need to be raised the right way and owning them really isn't for everyone. That being said, under the right hand, raised well, they are incredibly useful dogs who really pose little to no threat to the world at large. If shepherds are naturally vicious as this law suggests, why do the police use them? Clearly the fact that they are working dogs and do fine in that capacity means that they can be trained to be predictable. I'd be more in favor of a law that mandates obedience training and whose owners can certify via exam/inspection that their dog handles the way it should. I would be more in favor of a law that mandates OWNER training and puts more consequences on the owners of having a dog that breaks the rules. But to have a law that says you have to muzzle your dog to go out for a walk? That's ridiculous. It wouldn't even be able to defend itself (or you) if something happened.