Hot Topics

Rottweiler And GSD Amongst Breeds Labelled ‘Dangerous’

From July 1st 2011, owners of dogs that the city of College Park, Gainesvill  deems “potentially dangerous” must be registered, photographed and should be forced to wear a bright identifying tag to mark them out. 

Ambrose Clay, the local Councilman, brought in the breed specific legislation following two high profile dog attack cases in his district. 

“What the person has to do is go to the vet and get a chip implanted into the dog for identification purposes.  They also have to submit a photograph of the dog, and they’ll be issued a brightly colored tag that will identify it as a potentially dangerous dog,” said Clay. 

http://i.imgur.com/xyR0m.jpg 

The legislation has been opposed by anti BSL groups, including Dogs Deserve Bettter whose spokesperson Heidi Pollyea says: 

“Breed profiling is wrong.  It targets the dog when the real problem with any canine is how the owners raise and treat it.” 

People who don’t register their dogs face fines and Clay says owners will also have their dogs taken and impounded should they not comply. 

The following are breeds of dogs required to be registered in College Park: 

Pit Bull 

American Pit Bull Terrier 

American Staffordshire Terrier 

Staffordshire Bull Terrier 

Rottweiler 

Doberman 

German Shepard 

Breed specific legislation is a concept that has been tried in various places around the world. 

It has proven to be controversial, expensive and has never been proven to have prevented a single dog attack or death. 

What say you? Do you agree that some breeds should be given special legislation or do you feel the same breeds get a bad rep over and over again? 

Add your opinion via our comments section below…

10 Comments

10 Comments

  1. Jasmine Kleine

    June 29, 2011 at 10:14 am

    Breed profiling is as misguided now as ever. It doesn’t work.

  2. Marnie McCown

    June 29, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    I do not think breed profiling works. Unfortunately, many of these so-called aggressive breeds are owned by people who want a “tough” dog or want a dog that looks imposing. Sadly, beyond that, some of those same people use the breeds for dog fighting, which obviously increases the stigma (of the breeds and the type of people).
    I know several Rotties and GSDs who were very well-trained and behaved gently. I belive behavior is determined by proper breeding and, perhaps most importantly, how the dog is raised. Having photographed a wide variety of breeds, I have seen gentle Pit-bulls and aggressive Cavalier King Charles Spaniels and it all comes down to how the dog is raised.
    I don’t think a dog should be labeled without cause. If College Park is going to profile dogs they would be better served by rounding up all those with a history of owning aggressive dogs and banning them from dog ownership. That makes more sense to me.

  3. Cheryl Bassham

    June 29, 2011 at 9:13 pm

    This is totally wrong!!! I purchased 2 GSD’s several years ago. I payed alot money and had several thousand invested in training for show rings. Due to a job transfer, I was FORCED to get rid of them. Even tho one was trained for service. Gsd r dangerous breeds, I was told and my service dog and her brother were were labled. I think that animals should go thru an interview process insread of having a”lable” over their head.

  4. Claire Holtey

    July 5, 2011 at 10:43 am

    My GSD which I lost last year was the gentlest dog you could wish for. Even in her old age with arthitis and an annoying young puppy she was even tempered. She loved playing with the grandchildren.

    You just cannot label a ‘breed’ as dangerous. It is the owners who are more dangerous!

  5. Rebecca

    July 5, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    All dogs have the potential to be dangerous, if they are properly brought up and trained that lessens the risk. Listing GSD’s and rotties as dangerous will just encourage the type of people who want a ‘status’ dog to find a new one, such as Akitas and similar. Banning pitbulls has resulted in dog homes being overwhelmed with staffies, staffie crosses and other ‘fierce’ looking breeds, this will keep happening regardless of what breeds are banned. If we keep banning dogs in 10 years time we will potentially be having this argument about labradors and cocker spaniels.

  6. hgreenwood

    July 5, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    BSL Is A Failed And Costly Policy.

    Breed-specific legislation (BSL) comes in many forms, from extra insurance policies and special licenses, to outright bans of particular breeds. It generally targets a small set of dog breeds. It attempts to curb dog bites and dog attacks by implementing policies focused specifically on those breeds. And it is always a complete failure – technically and morally.

    We all should agree that dog owners should be responsible for their dogs and that law should impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible owners. Communities must establish a well-defined procedure for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous which includes, if necessary, the destruction of such animals. In order to be effective, if the purpose of such legislation is to reduce dog bites and improve public safety; such legislation should not be breed-specific.

    Some people mistakenly believe that owners of these so-called “dangerous” breeds do not care about public safety because they object so strongly to BSL. On the contrary, these owners are acutely aware of the need for strong non-breed-specific dangerous/vicious dog laws, and they fully support efforts to strengthen and enforce those laws. However, these owners also realize that the problem of dog bites and dog attacks does not lie within a single breed or group of breeds. The problem ultimately lies with the individual owner, and that is where the focus of dangerous dog laws should be.

    The slang term “pit bull” can describe anywhere from 3-30+ breeds of dog and their mixes. That’s why “pit bull” as a designation has widely become recognized as a type, not a breed; a type that could potentially describe countless numbers of medium- and large-breed dogs and their mixes. Does it not follow that if “pit bull” is a conglomeration of breeds and mixes rather than an actual breed, that statistics on “pit bulls” would be incredibly skewed? And because, indeed, statistics on “pit bulls” are skewed, they are false and therefore meaningless and worthless.

    Legislation needs to be focused on the negligence of irresponsible owners, and NOT the animal. Enact legislation based upon behavior and not by breed or the appearance of the dog.

    In the recent past, two of the nations’ oldest and most notorious breed-specific laws, in Toledo, Ohio and Topeka, Kansas, were unanimously voted away by their City Councils. The laws were replaced not out of a desire for political correctness or love of the dogs, but because they caused cost overruns, shelter overcrowding, lawsuits, and wasted animal control resources.

    Recently the city of Delta, in British Columbia also repealed an early 1990’s-era breed-specific law classifying all pit bulls as dangerous, because city staff could find no credible research linking dog bites with breed of dog: “…it appears animal behavior is determined by both genetic and environmental factors. Some of those factors include the owner’s maturity level and ability to meet necessary time commitments of dog ownership.” Source: Delta Optimist, June 12, 2010.

    BSL has never worked because it does not address the basic issue of lack of owner responsibility and canine management.

  7. jeanette fossum

    October 4, 2011 at 1:19 am

    i am tired of bleeding hearts and politicians who don’t know a damn thing about dogs.
    it is the way the dogs are raised when they are pups
    each case should be kept separate and not an entire breed.

  8. Donna Hayes

    December 5, 2011 at 10:51 pm

    Dogs have as much a chance of biting as humans do murdering another human… it’s how you’re raised. If they’re going to tag dogs as dangerous, they need to tag certain humans just as well, if they’re going to enforce sterilization on certain dogs, then the same should be done on certain humans. If I lived in a place where they tried to impose such laws, I would pack my things and take my tax paying money with me. I have German Shepherds, had a pit and a rottie growing up, they loved everyone, were great dogs, in fact, the poodle I had would have bitten before the others. Those in high places trying to enforce these things on us should have their seats kicked out from under them. How dare they play God!

  9. Stephanie H

    December 6, 2011 at 12:15 am

    Breed profiling does NOT work! I have heard of Golder Retrievers and Labradors attacking people, that doesn’t mean the breeds are dangerous, it just means they were raised wrong. I have had family and friends over the years who have owned every one of those breeds, and though some of them were terrible barkers, all of them were cuddly and loveable and wouldn’t attack anyone.

  10. carol larkin

    December 6, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    Would it be correct to label all men rapist’s because a small number have committed this crime, for god’s sake be humane and don’t punish the innocent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top