Do you think there should be more regulations for the Pitbull breed?

Question

I think Pitbulls can be good dogs. In fact, I know they can be good, and have friendly temperments because I've been around some that were very nice.

That said, it's impossible to ignore that many of these dogs are being acquired by the wrong people. Some owners are buying these dogs with no sense of how to properly train them. Others are more deviant, and are conditioning them to fight or be overly protective.

Do you think that stronger regulations (regarding Pitbull ownership) would help alleviate the negative stereotypes that are associated with these animals?

Answer 1

Nope.  Regulations don't work.  If you regulate pit bulls, the ignorant people who view them as status symbols will just go on to the next breed, and ruin that as well.  

Answer 2

We need to focus on educating the public about the APBT and similar breeds. We need to crack down on neglect, abuse, and dog fighting. Regulating the breed does nothing but kill out a breed and make the idiots move on to others.

If people are doing illegal things with their dogs, do you really think "banning" that breed is going to stop them? Do you think idiots will stop beating their dogs if we make them get another breed? Do you think people will stop being irresponsible...?

Honestly....

Does THIS look like a vicious dog? ---

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25698377@N0...

My friend's pit/lab mix and my dog - he actually posed for the pics lmao.

Answer 3

The breed isn't the issue... people are the issue. Pitbulls are like any dog, generally good natured an gentle until someone teaches them to be otherwise. And adding more regulations won't help if there's no one to enforce and monitor.

Answer 4

Absolutely.

I think stronger regulations for dog ownership and breeding in general would help alleviate not only the number of unstable dogs, but also the number of dogs in shelters.

Look at it this way: To acquire the privilege to drive a car, you need to pass a written exam, as well as a physical driving test. Shouldn't similar regulations be put in place for owning a living being? A car can be potentially dangerous if you don't know what you're doing behind the wheel....and a dog is a potential danger if the owner is uneducated as to it's care.

Sure, pit bulls are the focus at the moment. But poor breeding and ownership effect ALL breeds, not just pits.

Answer 5

Personally I think it would be a good thing to limit the ownership of ANY dog breed to only allow people who know how to raise dogs to own them. If a person doesn't know how and wants to own a dog they should have to attend classes and be able to prove they are able to show dominance over their dog in order to be the dog's pack leader...which is what every dog needs...even tiny little Chihuahua's.

According to "cougerdennis" logic all humans should be euthanized also considering the amount of unprovoked violence they show on a daily basis.

Answer 6

I think there should be more regulations one who owns/breeds ANY dog..

read this link its about the most dangerous dogs...

http://www.gomestic.com/Pets/The-Six-Mos...

its rather interesting because 1 or 2 you might expect.. but most people dont even think about the others...

Answer 7

There should be stronger regulations for dog ownership in general, but not breed specific laws.

Enforcing current regulations and education would go a long way toward enhancing the pit bull's image.  Creating laws that are specific to the pit bull just reinforces the idea that they are inherently dangerous.

Answer 8

they all should be outlawed and euthanized

Answer 9

Everyone who has really answered are saying that more regulations should be put up on all dog ownership, etc.  It's not really the issue.  If someone has to be put under a background test, etc.  They are going to be the people who follow the rules and abide the law.  Most of these bad people that acquire Pitbulls and other dogs that are mistreated do not adopt them or buy them from reputable pet stores.  They buy them from people who breed their dogs in their home.  They aren't registered or any other way of showing they even have a dog.  These people should not have dogs, and if more regulations were put up we would have to have someone constantly monitoring and some kind of enforcement.  

I don't believe there is anything we can really do other then keep an eye out and reporting mistreated dogs.  We will never be able to filter out the bad owners from good, and by adding regulations it just makes it harder for good owners to get dogs.  Bad people will always find their way around the law.

Answer 10

The problem is the owners more than the dogs. I had a friend who had one that was a great pet and very friendly. Most of the owners see having one as a way to look tough and they either agitate the dog constantly or just try to train it to be aggressive. I do not know how you can regulate this other than saying that certain people cannot be owners, but that would be very difficult to enforce. (and there are a lot of mixes that can be just as bad)

The other part is that they have been bred in the last 20 years to bring out more aggressive and unpredictable traits. Breeders would have to take responsibility and stop the inbreeding and selective breeding that has been going on, and that would take another 20 years or so.  

Answer 11

are we talking gang territory or nice lovely rural areas?

gangs and promoters of fighting will not ever cooperate:if anything they

will get ahold of the cream of the crop pups to use for their amusement

Answer 12

Regulations and BSLs do nothing. You have to hit these bad breeders and owners where it really hurts, THEIR WALLETS!!!!! Hefty fines and penalties for fighting dogs, including being in possession of an illegal weapon if proved that the animal was used in fights. Make it illegal to keep dogs chained up or confined in small areas for prolonged periods of time, stiff penalties for breeding dogs without a proper license, strict  requirements must be met to become a breeder, and penalties and fines for having unaltered animals, unless the animal cannot have surgery due to a medical issue, every year that the animal is unaltered after 1 year of age.

Most importantly, heftier fines for animal cruelty. A piddling $500 fine is nothing. $2,000 minimum fine for animal cruelty, $4,000 minimum fine for animal cruelty leading to death, or euthanasia directly stemming from cruelty (ie.leaving a dog in the car on a hot day,  leaving a dog with broken leg that lead to sepsis, starvation, etc.). Much of the monies would go to care for people's pets, that maybe their owners can't afford to get certain things done, mobile units to  people living on fixed incomes, living by themselves and a furry critter is their only friend, and educational after school programs for children in areas  where dog fighting is prevelant, that center around animals, so as the children get older, they may have better respect and compassion for pets, instead of wanting to hurt them.