kokopelli, Funny you should mention the Dalmation, as the list I saw gave it the nod as the #1 biter, as reported by emergency rooms. I found that most ironic given the tremendous number of Dalmation puppies flooding into homes with children due to the influence of the 101 Dalmation and sequels and cartoons that came out.
About the owner refusing to muzzle a known biter... Don't you see a series of problems here? A vet office with no private exit should refuse service to an owner who refuses to conform to requirements for public safety. The Dalmation owner of course exhibits classic arrogance and stupidity and is making a case for retroactive abortion and or euthanasia based on extreme need in his case, not the dog's.
For either of us, or anyone for that matter, to try to prove the general case by citing specific, potentially non-typical, examples is not productive. Insurance companies understand risk very well, especially in aggregate. You might not like the way they ameliorate it but you should understand that they are experts in risk analysis and to "bet" against them is not a smart thing.
In a specific example, you might have a dog of the most aggressive, attack prone, and damage causing breed on the planet that has a "good" personality, has been well trained and sociallized by you, and has NEVER hurt you or any other person but that doesn't make that dog safe in any situation where uncontrolled things might happen involving others. It is the waist mounted bomb that has been worn for years and has never exploded so far to date. The breed is "wired to attack and kill" and could and would if the right circumstances occured.
I do appreciate your feelings regarding the fact that you may have had this and other dogs of this type, trouble free, for decades and resent rules that interfere with your activities. How are you going to to differentiate to society the difference between your dog and the others of its breed?
There are laws that require your car to have operable lights although you might NEVER drive in reduced illumination. Are these laws unfair or wrong? There are often situations where the "granularity" of a law makes no accomodation for subtle differences. In Oklahoma, a recent vote outlawed cock fighting and the keeping of fighting chicken breeds. Folks with a hidden agenda raised all sorts of specious arguments about imprisoning innocent chicken fanciers who might not realize some half breed chicken was part game cock and illegal to own.
The breeds are outlawed as well as the intended activity for which the breed exists. The argument is raised about just raising the chickens to raise them not to fight, just to raise. The law quite plainly outlaws the breed and the activity for which it was meant. I have little sympothy for the poor deprived chicken fancier that sits in the corner with tears streaming down their face because of a thwarted desire to raise fighting cocks. There are plenty of other kinds of chickens that can fill just about any need you can name.
I feel pretty close to the same way about dog breeds and tools. If you are trying to drive a screw, use a screw driver. Sure, you can drive a screw with a hammer or clear the ants from the picnic area with a massive air strike of napalm but these might not be the first choice of a cautious citizen. If you want a dead bird retrieved and not eaten, get a retriever. If you want rats harassed get a rat terrier. If you want something bigger like a big dog or a person attacked and killed get a dog bred and genetically programmed to attack and kill. Why is it surprising that dog breeds developed expressly for attacking and killing, will in fact attack and kill?
Any breed can be trained to be nasty and nippy but can a breed expressly programmed genetically to attack and kill be reliably trained to be a gentle companion dog? To my way of thinking, this should never be an issue because if you want a gentle breed get a gentle breed and if you want something to attack and kill get a matching breed. The right tool for the job. Don't saw logs with a nail file or drive screws with a sledgehammer.
There are always odities and people who for whatever reason "need" to be involved with them. I have seen guys juggle running chainsaws instead of balls or Indian clubs but think it would be inappropriate to do it while running through a crowd. It is an inappropriate risk to impose on other non-consenting members of society.
If you want to go out in the forrest somewhere and live with wolves (and not hurt them) society shouldn't mind. If on the other hand you choose to bring the wolves to live with you in your midtown Manhattan appartment and run with them in Central Park, then I think it is appropriate for society to intervene for public safety. Pit bulls and the like are dogs, directly descended from wolves, like all other breeds recognized by the AKC, except they are specifically bred for the purpose of attacking and killing. It is literally, their nature. Why choose to try to layer on a veneer of socialization onto a born and bred killer if what you want is some form of companion dog or guard dog, or companion/guard dog? Why substitute C-4 for modeling clay if what you claim to want is the atributes of modeling clay?
//SOAPBOX MODE OFF//
OK, I'll quit ranting and let you 'splain it to me.
[img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
