Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You're responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it--details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums' policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it's understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users' profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses -- Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it's related to a horse for sale, regardless of who's selling it, it doesn't belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions -- Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services -- Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products -- While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements -- Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be "bumped" excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues -- Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators' discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the �alert� button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your �Ignore� list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you'd rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user's membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

Banning dog breeds

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Banning dog breeds

    With the recent death of the woman in CA do you think more states will consider banning ownership of certain dogs? It's hard to look past the horror of a human killed by neighborhood dogs. If I am hiking in the woods and meet a bear, I have no expectation of "good" behavior by the bear.

    I haven't heard about the death, but I hope they don't. It's not the breed but the owner. Unfortunately some breeds become the "in" breed for wanna be gangsters, and they intentionally make them mean, or regular people with no dog experience unintentionally make them that way using "alpha/dominance type training, or by chaining the dog and not socializing it.

    In addition, if someone is going to own a dog that is considered a "dangerous" breed, they need to be extra careful about where they go with it/how they handle it. It may be a great dog, but probably shouldn't go to dog parks, because if another dog attacks it, and the dog defends itself, the "dangerous" breed will get blamed, and be put at risk of being euthed. It will also be publicized by local papers as a "dangerous" breed attack in local media, and encourage more cities and towns to attempt to ban them. At the least, it will garner more negative publicity for an already maligned breed.


      I wish the laws would lead to just plain dangerous dog laws and keep breed 100% out if it. All the signs that point to a dangerous dog can be there regardless of breed. Too much focus on the breed bans overlooks other dangerous dogs and takes valuable shelter and animal control resources away from the communities the breed ban laws are enacted.

      In the cities with the breed bans, it can lead to a bite increase because of lack of socialization (owner fear the dogs will be seized) and lack of vet care including not getting the pups fixed, again because of seizure/kill fears if the vets are mandated to call the dogs into animal control.

      IMHO holding all dog owners responsible for their dogs behavior is much more important than a breed focus. I don't think you would miss the breeds in question with pure dangerous dog laws, but instead of all the time & money spent fighting the legislation there could be better public information and animal control tools to deal with all truly dangerous dogs.


        Breed bans are very much like current gun control laws. They attempt to change human behavior indirectly. And ... I very much don't blame the dogs.

        The blame fully rests on the dog's owners for controlling the dog. As every horse owner understands their horse is their responsibility in all ways too. (or should)
        Equus makus brokus but happy


          Holding the owners of these particular dogs responsible would be great. But what do you want to bet that they don't have insurance that would cover it/don't have money or other assets?

          It's a shame. And how do you assess whether a dog is dangerous or not before something like this happens? I don't agree with breed bans either but the whole issue is more tricky than people think.
          What's wrong with you?? Your cheese done slid off its cracker?!?!


            Dangerous dog laws are fine. Breed specific laws are not. Worst bite I ever took was off a lab. Don't see them too much on "bad breed" lists. I work in a shelter. Pits are by far the nicest tempered dogs. They are usually, happy, love people, and if anything, a little TOO enthusiastic. If we see problems, it's with dog aggression, not people aggression. We are no-kill, which means we only euthanize for extreme behavior or medical issues. We have put down (or had put down) three dogs for behavior issues. Two bit people unpredictably, a hound and a shepherd/lab mix. The third was a pit bull who was so dog aggressive he was breaking out kennel doors to go after other dogs. We deemed that too dangerous to adopt out, although he never offered to hurt a person.

            My personal pit was (she's no longer with us, put down at 13 due to cancer) a certified therapy dog. She had obedience titles, agility titles, and was trained in schutzhund. She was an awesome dog, and loved everyone she met with no reservations. She got along with most other dogs, cats, and livestock. She got in one fight in her life, that was started by a cattle dog with a huge chip on her shoulder. Molly just defended herself.

            You can't take a breed and say "those are all horrid, get rid of them". Ok, well, you can, but then the stupid people and bad dog owners will just move onto another breed of the day, and start making them aggressive and mean. Then you get to ban that breed too. Before you know it, dogs will be banned and we won't be allowed to have them at all, because, well, you know they are dangerous and bite.

            First it was shepherds, then Dobermans, then rotties, now it's pit bulls. Who's next on the "bad dog" list?


              If you go down the breed ban path, it is something that just keeps expanding to more and more breeds. There are enforcement problems and a number of perfectly safe dogs are destroyed while dangerous dogs outside the breed ban are not.
              Pits are more frequently than other breeds kept in ways that promote issues. I haven't heard of this incident, but if these dogs were left to run at large in a pack then that sounds like a big part of the problem. Sometimes enforcement of existing laws is what is needed.


                I think breed bans are foolish, catering to the uneducated masses who buy into the whole "Pits are EVIL and will eat your baby!" crap. But, IF breed bans must exist, I think there should be a way for well behaved dogs to get past the ban. Maybe dogs who have their CGC should be exempt? It would allow for the well behaved, well trained dogs with responsible owners to stay and possibly promote the breed.


                  it's ALWAYS the owner, not the dogs, that is the problem. Certainly there are differences in behavior from breed to breed, but whether those differences turn into a "problem" depends on the owner. And what about mixed-breeds? it's ridiculous. I own a dog who is part pit bull, but she doesn't look like a pit at all due to the vagaries of genetics, so no one is afraid of her; yet dogs with exactly the same amount of pit bull genetics who happen to look pitty are killed just because of the way they look, not act. It's ridiculous.


                    Original Poster

                    There was a lovely male pit that I had wanted to adopt, but my home owners insurance listed pitbulls along with several other breeds that they would not insure. I do feel sorry for the type of dog that weird people like to own and abuse.

                    The news did say it was six or eight pitbulls that were owned by a drug dealer that killed the woman. Just a bad situation all around.


                      There was a dangerous dog permit program we had back in CA. If your dog bit someone, you had certain restrictions to follow with that dog or he would be PTS and you could be charged with a crime. Instead of banning certain breeds, why not enforce the leash laws, spend more money on AC and require dangerous dog permits for certain breeds, if you must do something. Make sure to include AC officer's discretion as to the breed and include a cause to label a dog as dangerous if he shows dangerous behaviors in public places.

                      I take our very well-socialized GSD to the farmer's market sometimes and he is perfect. Sometimes this moron bring his GSD that is a complete menace. He has no control and the dog barks and lunges at kids and other dogs. he thinks he's cool because he has a big scary dog. That is the kind of moron that needs a dangerous dog permit.

                      I would be fine with the restrictions and getting a dangerous dog permit for our GSD. We are responsible pet owners that don't allow our dog to run free nor does he display anti-social behaviors. That moron would be getting a ticket and told to keep his dog at home. I know, the idiots ruin it for everyone else, but what else are we going to do when everyone hits that panic button?
                      Pray, hope, and don't worry.

                      St. Padre Pio


                        I can't wait till chihuahuas, min pins, shih tzus, malteses, and other various small dogs start getting banned and develop a rep for being 'bad' dogs.

                        Says the pittie cross owner that has been bitten by more smaller dogs than larger dogs. (used to work at a boarding kennel).

                        There, I feel better now. ...


                          Originally posted by Gestalt View Post
                          With the recent death of the woman in CA do you think more states will consider banning ownership of certain dogs? It's hard to look past the horror of a human killed by neighborhood dogs. If I am hiking in the woods and meet a bear, I have no expectation of "good" behavior by the bear.
                          It's been on the books in Germany for many years now. Pain in the batooty. If I were to acquire a dog of unknown origin who just happens to look the part, part Pit, or Staffy or whatever, I would do well not even considering bringing the pooch along should I ahve to move there.

                          It is moronic. Simple as that.

                          It isn't the Pit that is dangerous.
                          It's the people on the end of the leash.

                          I like your analogy with the bear...but sadly, domesticated animals do not have the ingrained respect for humans, as desensitized wild critters can lose that quickly.

                          But generally speaking, breed restrictions like that are dumb.
                          The nefarious owners will find something else to turn evil. If they have to pit Yorkies and Chihuahuas against each other, so be it.


                            Well, the dangerous dog permit was not breed specific. Every dog bite was supposed to be reported, even by an ankle biter.
                            Pray, hope, and don't worry.

                            St. Padre Pio


                              Originally posted by microbovine View Post
                              Well, the dangerous dog permit was not breed specific. Every dog bite was supposed to be reported, even by an ankle biter.
                              but do that with a straight face for a toy dog!


                                Solution is to require a permit for certain breeds. Prerequisite for permit is 1m umbrella policy.


                                  Originally posted by lightlee View Post
                                  Solution is to require a permit for certain breeds. Prerequisite for permit is 1m umbrella policy.
                                  I'd say cover any dog with such an umbrella insurance. Even a toy breed can cause much trouble. Not through bite - under normal circumstance - but in a round about way.


                                    This is gonna be lengthy, so get comfy, lol.

                                    I am an owner of an aggressive Pit Bull. I knew she was aggressive when I adopted her from the local SPCA. She had been seized from a fighting ring along with a group of other Pit Bulls who were then housed at the SPCA during the "owners" trial. The judge then ordered the dogs PTS, and all were except the one I adopted. The SPCA workers named her "Hope" and kept her upstairs in an office for a month, socializing with other dogs and people. The very first day they put her in a lot downstairs to be adopted, I walked in. There was something about her that spoke to me, I knew she was my dog. I looked at all the other dogs there, and none "spoke" to me like she did. I asked to take her outside and walk her. "Hope" wanted nothing to do with me. We got to the fenced in play yard and I took her in and let her off the leash to see if she'd come to me when I called. Instead she ran the perimeter of the enclosure with her tail tucked between her legs. An older lady came into the enclosure, sat on the bench and called her. "Hope" immediately jumped into the womans lap and licked her face. That was exactly what I wanted to see. There was hope for "Hope". Turns out, this elderly lady lived right down the road from the fighting ring and was visiting "Hope" every day, talking to her, holding her, petting her, bringing her treats when the "owner" wasnt home. The older lady loved the dog but knew that "Hope" was too much dog for her to handle and so she was unable to adopt her. I made that lady a promise that if I adopted "Hope", she could come see her anytime she wanted. I thought about that dog all weekend and Monday morning I called in sick to work and went and got my dog, but not without the SPCA staff coming out to my home to make sure it was a safe place for "Hope" first. It was announced that "Hope" was going home over the loudspeaker at the SPCA and everyone applauded. When I got her out to my car, she had this look on her face like "what now"? The only way I could get her in the car was to pick her up and put her in there...but the look on her face as I drove us home was priceless. It said.."Im going home".

                                    Thats been many years ago and Hope had been my bestfriend since. She's been more than my bestfriend, she's literally saved my butt a couple times, once when a complete stranger (up to no good) walked into my house. I know her like the back of my hand. With that said, we dont go to dog parks because she is dog aggressive (she does have a handful of doggie friends that she absolutely adores, including the older ladys 2 shitzu's and my other younger Bull TerrierXPit Bull) and she never ever runs free. My neighbors know she is aggressive and they also know that if she is running free, something is hugely wrong. She goes outside to potty on a 25 foot rope that is attached to a very large tree. She has plenty of room to roll in the grass, sunbathe, and use the bathroom however she'd much rather be inside laying on the couch.

                                    I've always had a Pit Bull, even as a kid. So many people want a dog or get a dog thinking "its just a dog". Its not just a dog, its a responsibility. Its my responsibility to keep my aggressive dog controlled at all times, to make sure that she isnt a threat to anyone/anything, to warn people (such as the vet) that she is aggressive, and to be an advocate for her, and her and everyone/elses well being that comes into contact with her. Does it suck that I cant find anyone to board her while I take a vacation? Eh, yea, but she's my responsibility and she isnt a responsibility that just anyone can handle, and I completely understand that.

                                    I dislike uneducated comments about the breed. All dogs bite, more so when provoked. It isnt a true statement that Pit bulls bite more than any other breed, although thier jaw pressure is much stronger than other breeds which leads to a more damaging bite, when they do bite. I often remind Pit Bull "bashers" that the lady whose dog ate her face off years ago (she had the 1st face transplant I believe) was a Lab.

                                    Just this weekend I was invited over to a friend of a friends house for a cookout. They have a German Shepherd who was barking and was just doing his job protecting his people, he's never met me. I let him bounce around me and sniff my hand, and then I bent down. He then nipped my face, it was more nose than teeth, didnt break my skin at all. Whos fault was that? The dog? No, it was mine, completely my fault. I knew better! You never bend over and offer your face to a dog who doesnt know you and is protecting his people. Dummy mistake on my part. The dogs people and I then shook hands and acted friendly towards each other in the dogs presence, and the dog was then fine with me.

                                    Its all about education, and responsibility. Know your dog. Know the breed and what your dog is capable of. And for gods sake dont get the dog if you dont have time to be responsible and/or train it. (Just had 2 coworkers drop off thier puppies at the SPCA because the idiots couldnt figure out how to train the dog not to pee in the house. They got the puppy cause it was cuuuute. Ugh)


                                      Breed bans are silly and, most of all, LAZY. It's really about enforcing responsible ownership all dogs, and of dangerous or nuisance dogs, in particular. ANY dog an meet those criteria.

                                      I'm in New England, in a small enough, and traditional enough, town that we still have a Board of Selectmen and a direct Town Meeting. We (Town Meeting, which consists of every registered voter who bothers to show up) make the laws, the BOS interprets and enforces them. There are no breed bans. If you want to make a complaint about a problem dog (read problem owner), you get it on the BOS agenda and they are obligated to investigate and pursue it with ACO. They are all pretty reasonable, not reactionary. We have a good ACO. If an individual dog is determined to be "dangerous", based on reported incidents, with ACO investigation and input, the BOS will order mitigation...fencing, muzzles, never outside when owner isn't also outside, leashed always (even on property), etc... If the owners do not follow through on the mitigation requirements, the BOS will vote on whether to order the dog euthanized or banned from town. If they are banned from town, the BOS sends letters to the "receiving town", letting them know what happened.

                                      Now, I know this wouldn't work in a big city, but in suburban towns, there's really no excuse for taking the lazy way out and not dealing with dogs on an individual basis. We're just over 20K residents and this is a "doggie" town, there are lots of dogs, it's manageable because few dogs are really a problem.

                                      Works pretty well, it considers very individual circumstances and most owners get their act together and follow up on the mitigation orders. I've lived here for 12 years and, to the best of my knowledge, there's been one dog ordered euthanized and a couple "banned"...all the owner's fault.

                                      We've had a "stranger aggressive" ACD mix here for 14 years and, managing her and working with ACO on how best to do it, has kept everyone out of trouble for all this time.


                                        Where I live, Pitt Bulls are banned. But, I still see lots of them. And the vast majority are kind, sweet and well cared for/trained dogs. There are also owners that will muzzle them if they have shown any inclination to be dog aggressive.

                                        The ban HAS cut down on the amount of pits in shelters, as there are less "unwanted" pits out there. I dont agree with euthanizing breeds just because they are of "that" breed, but I think adopting these breeds out from shelters MUST be heavily screened. I also believe 100% of pitbulls adopted from shelters are to be sterilized to prevent backyard breeding.

                                        I have a pitty mix and she is 13. She is the sweetest, most trustworthy dog I have ever had. I have had fosters from a large humane society, in which she has helped me socialize them. She is wonderful with children, and those nervous of dogs. I had her since a puppy, and she has known nothing else other than to love people, and other animals. I wouldnt hesitate to get another (wish I could clone her!) but I think its really really important to ensure they get the right people rather than people getting the right dog.