I many respects I can agree with those who feel it's the owner not the dog that causes the problem (see gun restrictions). And to me, one of the problems is there are people who get Pit Bulls and Rots because the owner thinks it makes them cool...kind of like buying jewerly. However, if the dog advocate groups did a better job of policing their industry government would not have to step in.

If dog advocate groups did a better job of policing their industry? Whoa, hold on a minute. Advocate groups do everything in their power, from strict adoption policies, to advocating off leash space to improve socialization, to tightening laws that punish those who abuse animals, and the list goes on. However, there are bad people out there who do bad things. Whether it be with their dogs, their guns, drunk driving, or whatever their vice may be. However, we should not pass laws that punish the people who are responsible and do follow the rules. These laws make it more difficult for good people to be good. If you have a pit or a Rotti and don't let it exercise, run free, play and socialize, you are now ASKING for an aggressive dog. We need to encourage good behavior, discourage bad behavior and put the blame where it belongs.

Cara: I would agree with you. However, encouraging and policing are two differnt things. For example, If the law required dog groups and/or breeders to verify the owner has been certified in ownership AND obedience training, required home inpspections prior to placement, required the owner to prove access to certified animal medical personnel, etc. prior to selling or placement of a dog, and anyone who didn't follow the requirements prior to selling or placement of a dog could be cited for animal abuse, that would be policing. To simply ask for the aforementioned mentioned would be encouraging. Many draw immediate parallels to treating dogs as they would any living animal, includng humans. It seems if you have that philosphy, you would support placement of a dog should be no differnt than the placement of a child. In other words, it's not that they would be punishing the good, but rather making sure that nothing slips through the cracks. I guess in some ways it could be looked at as a necessary evil.

I like dogs.

I have the opportunity to work with dogs every day. In my experience, most rottweilers and pits are really good dogs. The most aggressive dogs I run into are the chihuahuas, yorkies, and other little dogs that are treated as babies. Responsible owners will ensure a dog is well socialized and trained, no matter the breed. Breed-specific legislation is not the answer. These powerful breeds get a bad rap because of the few exceptions and irresponsible owners who get the dogs just because they seem tough. The vast majority of these owners realize their dogs could potentially be dangerous because of their sheer size and strength, and take the time to work with their dogs and socialize them with people and other dogs. I am far less wary of approaching a large, powerful dog that I don't know than I am of the little lap dogs.

Please understand two major points:

1. There is a tremendous population of dogs who are in need of good homes. An animal shelter that tried to implement the kinds of rules you suggest would quickly find that it was forced to put increasing numbers of dogs to death as it ran out of space. And people who really wanted certain dogs but were unwilling to go through the red tape you suggest could simply buy them from "puppy mills" or unlicensed breeders, in-state or somewhere else.

2. It is not completely clear what a "pit bull" is (try looking for the name in the AKC--it doesn't exist!). Even a "rottweiler" mix can look more or less like a labrador or a Swiss Mountain Dog or a hundred other breeds. So when you get right down to specific cases--and especially with mixed-breed dogs--there's no way to determine what breed a dog is. Many cities and counties that have tried to ban specific breeds dogs have found that they run into this problem. Bottom line: it's the owner that matters, not the breed.

All good points. But I'm trying to ascetain from a dangerous dog versus being humane standpoint (not necessarily breed specific) what are good conscienious ways to deal with the problem. As I listen to both sides, it appears there isn't much middle ground on how people feel on this issue. And in all honestly, neither side makes what I would consider a "complete" arguement. But then again, that's probably why this is such a difficult issue.

I would like to mention something that came up in last night's meeting, that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere. It was stated that 207 dog bite incidents occurred in Sandy last year. 24 of those incidents were due to Pit Bulls...that leaves 183 bites not attributed to pit bulls. It was never mentioned which breeds those bites came from, and in what number.

The CDC stopped tracking dog bites by breed in 1998 because they found two things were happening. 1) people were taking those numbers and trying to justify breed specific legislation with them and 2) the numbers were skewed towards different breeds during different periods of time. The breeds that ranked at the top of the list during different periods coincided with what was the popular "tough dog" of the time. German Sheppard Dogs topped that list for a 5 year period. Great Danes topped the list for a 2 year period. Right now it's Pit Bulls and Rottweilers.

My point is this, people will always find a breed which they can strengthen and teach to be aggressive. Those of us that happen to own those breeds, and love them dearly, do not deserve to be punished unfairly.

In addition to Matthew's factual post:

The identification of breeds is not specific. Unless the dog is a registered pure bred with a recognized association (such as the American Kennel Club) there is no way to know what the breeding of that animal is. Further, "mix breeds" are impossible to identify beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now who should identify breeds? There is no certification available that trains or proves that a particular individual can identify breeds. I can't tell you how many times in my decade of work in vet clinics where people have called their dogs a particular breed without any knowledge of that breed or proof that the dog is of that heritage.

I would argue that ANY dog who bites, from any breed, the vast majority are not registered pure-bred dogs.

There are many cities who have implemented Responsible Dog Ownership Legislation. These cities have PROVEN that their cities have been made SAFER due to these laws. Breed Specific Legislation has NOT proven safety. Which isn't that why it's being considered? For Safety? Then why consider a solution that isn't proven?

Good owners own good dogs. Bad owners typically don't. So who are you going to punish?

There is no bad dog just bad owners has been said many times. I feel that owners/handlers should be held responsible for their dog's action. Socialization & obedient training make for better dogs. When I got my first rotti I decided I was going to have the most docial, gentle, friendly dog in my neighborhood. To do this I spent alot of time socializing & obedient training my dog. I have had 4 rotties and I still try my hardest to maintain gentle, loving, obedient dogs so we are welcome in our neighborhood.

Check out the Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention
put out by the AVMA Task Force KIP.
It can be found on the AnimalFarmFoundation site.
Click on the Media Section,then click on the Expert Opinion on BSL.
The link for the AVMA report is right near the top of page.
It`s well worth the read and I hope the people making the decisions will read it.

Didn`t mean to capitalize your name Kip.
Comment was only directed at you because of your query.
[quote]But I'm trying to ascetain from a dangerous dog versus being humane standpoint (not necessarily breed specific) what are good conscienious ways to deal with the problem.[/quote]
The AVMA report may help.