Food for Thought
Breed Ban IQ Test
1. If you were the sheriff in your town and you learned thatToyotas were disproportionally involved in more accidents than any other model, would you (a) ban Toyotas and confiscate the Toyota of anyone caught driving one, or (b) arrest the drivers responsible for those accidents?
2. Which course of action in Question 1 do you think would(a) inconvenience the fewest number of people, (b) be the more efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and (c) be more effective in preventing future accidents involving Toyotas?
3. If your answer to Question 1 was (a) ban Toyotas and the sheriff's department learned that, by a statistical quirk, drivers of confiscated Toyotas were perpetrating further accidents by driving, say, Hondas, would you then ban Hondas? If not, why not?
4. If your answer to Question 3 was, "Ban Hondas, too,dammit, something HAS to be done," then would you propose a ban on ALL car models with names ending in "a," such as Kias and Mazdas, reasoning that all these brands are pretty much made for the same purpose? If not, why not? If so, how would you deal with car brands that end in the SOUND of "a," such as Chevrolet?
5. Are you beginning to understand

(a) that because most of the tens of millions of pet dogs are NOT registered, "breed" cannot be defined in a meaningful way;
(b) that miscreants employ pit bulls, German shepherds, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Akitas, Great Danes that is, whichever dog is handy as personal tools of terrorism;

(c) that law enforcement authorities could waste inordinate amounts of time (and, therefore, taxpayer dollars) policing a breed ban, adding to their jobs a task perhaps even more meaningless than enforcing jaywalking laws;
(d) that the people most likely affected by a breed ban that is, those inconvenienced, harassed and likely to suffer damage are the 99.9% majority of utterly innocent dogs and people; and
(e) most important, that breed bans do ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to address the real problem: that is, human scumbags who abuse animals?
Key: If your answer to any part of Question 5 is "no," I'm afraid you have flunked. Please go back and reconsider your responses. Hint: The answer to the question, "What shall we do about the bank robber who got away on a bicycle?" is not: Ban bicycles.
Real answer: If your dog hurts someone, YOU not the dog should be responsible. Anti-cruelty and anti-dog-fighting laws already exist. Tell your mayor, and city or county or provincial council to up the current penalties, and insist that judges enforce those penalties against lawbreakers.

Test created by Paul Glassner, SF/SPCA
Food for Thought Breed Ban IQ Test

I agree generally with main point you are making here, but let's look at a couple of parts of your post anyway.
1. If you were the sheriff in your town and you learned that Toyotas were disproportionally involved in more accidents ... ban Toyotas and confiscate the Toyota of anyone caught driving one, or (b) arrest the drivers responsible for those accidents?

I'd want to know what was it about Toyota's that made them disproportionately involved in accidents, and if it was reckless driving - then why were those folks choosing Toyota's over other makes?
5. Are you beginning to understand (b) that miscreants employ pit bulls, German shepherds, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Akitas, Great Danes that is, whichever dog is handy as personal tools of terrorism;

Indeed - but why do they like those dogs particularly and not labs, poodles and spaniels?
What characteristics make a dog a) more capable of being "personal tools of terrorism" and b) attracts miscreants to them? Of course those are related!
This is more out of interest than in support of any ban, because it begins to illuminate the core reason ( e ) you outline further on.
(d) that the people most likely affected by a breed ban that is, those inconvenienced, harassed and likely to suffer damage are the 99.9% majority of utterly innocent dogs and people; and

sounds about right, but you'd need to back up the 99.9% with some statistics to make it meaningful, beyond a symbolic representation of your measured opinion.
(e) most important, that breed bans do ESSENTIALLY NOTHING to address the real problem: that is, human scumbags who abuse animals?

This is the core argument, IMO, which overrides all others.

Well argued.
(b) that miscreants employ pit bulls, German shepherds, Rottweilers, Dobermans, ... whichever dog is handy as personal tools of terrorism;

Indeed - but why do they like those dogs particularly and not labs, poodles and spaniels? What characteristics make a dog a) more capable of being "personal tools of terrorism" and b) attracts miscreants to them? Of course those are related!

i wonder how much the media has to do with this. i know that poor pit bull ownership had to start the whole media blitz, but the more pit bulls are splashed all over the news as being evil dogs, the more they seem to be desired by miscreants (good word).
husky type dogs are way up there on the bite list as well, as documented by the cdc and the like, and yet they are not what we think of as "personal tools of terrorism" or thug dogs.
what's the difference? the fluffy fur? (i'm not being completely flippant)
just thinking out loud..

petey was a pit bull.
http://shattering.org
Food for Thought Breed Ban IQ Test 1. If you were the sheriff in your town and you learned that ... to up the current penalties, and insist that judges enforce those penalties against lawbreakers. Test created by Paul Glassner, SF/SPCA

Just two points. Even Ontario is not talking about confiscating PitBulls, are they?
Second, weren't even Great Danes banned from NY at the turn of the last century. It shows how breeding can change dogs. As a young boy, we owned 2 loving danes (at different times). I can still remember their tails wiping out an entire end table full of stuff. Was funny. Sad part was that one died of heartworm, the other had a heart attack and just fell over in the yard. Danes don't live long.
-Rich
in thread (Email Removed) (gswork) whittled the following words:
This is the core argument, IMO, which overrides all others. Well argued.

Depends.If Toyotas were proven to be so dangerous, they would BE recalled. Pit Bull bans are exactly that recall..
Food for Thought Breed Ban IQ Test 1. If you ... those penalties against lawbreakers. Test created by Paul Glassner, SF/SPCA

Just two points. Even Ontario is not talking about confiscating PitBulls, are they?

The proposed legislation, which the Attorney General is determined to see passed because he "...is convinced pit bulls are inherently dangerous..." will ban the breeding and selling of pit bulls in Ontario. Current owners of pit bulls will be allowed to keep their animal but it will have to be muzzled and leashed when off the owners property and (some reports are saying) spaying/nueterig will be mandatory.
Second, weren't even Great Danes banned from NY at the turn of the last century. It shows how breeding can ... onedied of heartworm, the other had a heart attack and just fell over in the yard. Danes don't live long.

I don't know about Danes, but I remember 10 years ago when rottweilers were the "...inherently dangerous breed..." Before that it was Doberman Pinschers, before that it was...I don't know, but I'm sure it was something...
This is the part that bothers me so much about this legislation: the people who own pit bulls because it makes them feel macho or something to have an aggressive, poorly trained pit bull on a chain in their yard is not going to suddenly decide that they can feel macho without such a symbol if their pit bull is outlawed they will simply move to another breed instead :-( The law should be dealing with the bad breeders and irresponsible owners if it doesn't, pit bull bans will only be the start.
Marie
I don't know about Danes, but I remember 10 years ago when rottweilers were the "...inherently dangerous breed..." Before that it was Doberman Pinschers, before that it was...I don't know, but I'm sure it was something...

It was German Shepherds, and you are absolutely right. The lowlifes of the world will always have a breed du jour that they use to bolster their tough-guy image. If by chance BSL actually did succeed in getting the Pit Bull out of the hands of these losers (and I for one don't think it will) they'd simply change to a different breed. And as you point out, history shows us that they'll eventually move on to another breed regardless.
JFWIW,
Dianne