Pitbulls are more likely to be socialized to be aggressive than other dog breeds. Either for fighting or duty as guard dogs. (Both terrible - you do not have to breed an animal or abuse it to make it a good guard dog)
The numbers for how many pits involved in attacks this is true for, I have not been able to find.
Aren’t there breeding programs for service dog traits?
Hell, every "guard dog", in my opinion, should need to be insured for the possible outcomes it can cause. Dogs aren't infallible. Why should you be able to keep a guard dog and not pay money to mitigate the extremely real risks of that dog attacking someone?
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.
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.
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.
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.
If deterrence is ineffective, turn around and look at the dog owners again. Why do people get aggressive dogs?
The fraction of people who:
- get an aggressive dog (because they’re afraid of something)
- but feel no fear of repercussions (for their aggressive dog’s behavior)
has to be very small.
———
Also, might I suggest indeed “decreasing the population of these animals”?
Therefore if any solutions are to arise, it has to be more thorough than gentle nudges as that's only effective on those who likely wouldn't have bought a pitbull in the first place anyways due to the social stigma.
This is outright false on almost all counts.
- Only 30 states have licensing requirements on breeding dogs. Most of those set thresholds for getting licenses, usually 5-10 dogs (often just females).
- It's not illegal to buy a pitbull. I searched pretty hard and I can't find any regulation in the US that says that anyone can't buy a pitbull.
So no, there's not disincentive. There's no disincentive at all for anyone.
In short, the solution would probably only work if the majority of the pet owning population and breeders were well-off, financially responsible, and responded to insurance-related incentives.
That's not the intention. The intent is prevention, not justice.
> People who are irresponsible enough to have a dangerous, untrained pitbull as a pet, are probably also not responsible enough to have insurance or insure properly. People already drive without "mandatory" car insurance.
Which is why I specified that breeders should be required to certify that insurers have been informed. It's easier to shut down ten bad breeders than fine a hundred dog owners.
> They may also not have the money to pay the fines
If I get fined for not having insurance and I don't pay the fine, I go to jail. Is that controversial?
> "Require breeders" to do anything is hopeless due to the amount of unlicensed breeders and puppy mills that don't care about the law.
I'll ignore the fact that in many cases you don't need a license to breed dogs. The government does an awfully good job of making sure there aren't unlicensed [insert your favorite regulated profession here]. If you regulate it and enforce it, you can effectively achieve success, even if you don't get to 100%.
Civil liability doesn't stop a dog from jumping a fence and eating a kid's face. You can already be held liable for the actions of your animal. No amount of scaring people with [insurance premiums] is going to decrease the population of these animals.
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?