3
3
0
Policies banning specific dog breeds on base housing have been in place since 2009.
In 2009, the Army and Marine Corps banned a number of “aggressive or potentially aggressive” dog breeds from base housing both domestically and abroad. Three years later, the U.S. Air Force enacted a similar uniform policy.
In 2009, the Army and Marine Corps banned a number of “aggressive or potentially aggressive” dog breeds from base housing both domestically and abroad. Three years later, the U.S. Air Force enacted a similar uniform policy.
Why Some Dog Breeds Are Banned On Base Housing
Posted from taskandpurpose.com
Dogs
Service Dogs
Military Industry
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
I think those little tiny rat dogs should be banned on post. Those little Napoleon complex dogs that can't wait to bit the sh!t out of your ankles. Some of the best dogs I have ever been around, are the ones that are banned on post. Bad owners, terrible press coverage is probably the reason.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I had two of those little sh--s one time. The first and last. Those dogs are crazy.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I have owned 4 Pits, still have one. My wife and I worked with the local Humane society by fostering Pits and doing temperament testing for adoption. I can say that about 70% were adoptable, the other 30% were put down. Trust me, we never wanted anything to do with the breed, but our daughter fell in love with one at the shelter, so we educated ourselves about the breed.
With all of the above said, it boils down to breeding and raising. Pits have been so poorly bred, by individuals that have no business owning a gold fish, let alone a 50lbs. animal with teeth. I blame a lot of this on the poplar, thug/Hollywood mentality. This goes along with the training and raising of the dog, as well. The "look at me, I have a pit bull and I'm a tough guy" or "Seem my vicious dog, I worked really hard at making it a killer!" when in all actuality, the idiot found the first back yard breeder, took the pup home and has did nothing but yell at it, beat it and tormented the pup to the point that it brings out it's volatile aspect. No socialization training or basic obedience training, leaving a dog, that is normally a pack hunter, by breed, to rely on its own innate instincts.
So, I fully understand when the breed is targeted by communities as being a threat. If you want to change this, get rid of the idiots that have done the breed wrong. Produce, by training and genetics/breeding, a dog that once graced the RCA advertisements and the Little Rascals.
With all of the above said, it boils down to breeding and raising. Pits have been so poorly bred, by individuals that have no business owning a gold fish, let alone a 50lbs. animal with teeth. I blame a lot of this on the poplar, thug/Hollywood mentality. This goes along with the training and raising of the dog, as well. The "look at me, I have a pit bull and I'm a tough guy" or "Seem my vicious dog, I worked really hard at making it a killer!" when in all actuality, the idiot found the first back yard breeder, took the pup home and has did nothing but yell at it, beat it and tormented the pup to the point that it brings out it's volatile aspect. No socialization training or basic obedience training, leaving a dog, that is normally a pack hunter, by breed, to rely on its own innate instincts.
So, I fully understand when the breed is targeted by communities as being a threat. If you want to change this, get rid of the idiots that have done the breed wrong. Produce, by training and genetics/breeding, a dog that once graced the RCA advertisements and the Little Rascals.
(1)
(0)
Kayjay Fowler
LOL. The dogs on The Little Rascals were there with their trainer. They were never allowed loose with the children except in short excerpts ON CAMERA. Hollywood paints fantasies, and the Little Rascals was as far from reality as could be. Get real! Oh, and the RCA dogs wasn't a pit bull type dog, either. It was a Jack Russel Terrier style of dog. Why oh why do people "fall for" the propaganda put out by the pit bull lobby?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Even shelter staff who are around dogs often cannot accurately identify dog breeds*. Why would policy makers of any community be better? And what, exactly, determines if a breed is "aggressive or potentially aggressive"?
The funny thing about statistics is, they give you a very pretty snapshot of what is happening; but they don't always tell you the whole story. Statistics are a good source of information, but that doesn't mean that they are free of manipulation, or that all the pertinent pieces of information are reported.
Now, if a specific dog has a history of aggression, that is different.
*http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S [login to see] 0310X
The funny thing about statistics is, they give you a very pretty snapshot of what is happening; but they don't always tell you the whole story. Statistics are a good source of information, but that doesn't mean that they are free of manipulation, or that all the pertinent pieces of information are reported.
Now, if a specific dog has a history of aggression, that is different.
*http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S [login to see] 0310X
Inconsistent identification of pit bull-type dogs by shelter staff
One in three dogs lacking DNA for pit bull heritage breeds were labeled pit bull-type dogs by at least one staff member.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SPC Kelly MacLeod, I know they just guess if there are no papers, but the dogs described in this article are bad dogs. See my opinion above.
(0)
(0)
Kayjay Fowler
Kelly, That study is bogus! The study was intended to bust the "breed specific legislation" viewpoints that you could actually identify a dog as pit bull or not pit bull.
THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST WASN'T DISCLOSED. The study said "no conflict of interest", however on the first line it identified THREE of the eight authors as working with "Maddie's Shelter Medicine Program." Maddie's Fund is a superfund that donates money for studies to forward their own goal which is "A No-Kill Nation Now!" Since pit bulls are the primary breed glutting most shelters in the USA, Maddie's Fund "must" do something to ensure they stay alive and are adopted out. It is unethical for scientists and academics to publish studies without disclosing their conflicts of interest, as they did in this case.
APBT NOT INCLUDED IN A STUDY PRIMARILY ABOUT PIT BULLS: Per the study language "American pit bull terrier and pit bull were not included in the 226 breed signatures," which means that any dog that actually was America Pit Bull Terrier would NOT be identified as such in the DNA test results, skewing the results of the study. Because the Wisdom Panel (the DNA lab they used in the study) doesn't detect "American Pit Bull Terrier" DNA, these DNA results were coming back with weird and rare breeds like "Irish Water Spaniel". Come on! Who allows their rare breed purbred dog to mate with some other breed of dog to make a mutt? In this case, the study would have you believe someone allowed their Irish Water Spaniel to mate with a Siberian Husky or a Boston Terrier! Unbelievable! When your testing lab cannot correctly identify the subjects in your study, then your study sample is flawed. The study authors wrote "Limitations of our study include unknown sensitivity and specificity of the DNA breed testing and lack of a DNA test for American pit bull terrier."
STUDY USED SUPER-MUTTS AS THEIR TEST SAMPLES: The study used mixed breed dogs with very low percentages of a dominant breed, with as little as 12.5% pit bull type by DNA. And if anyone missed calling THAT a pit bull, then THAT became fodder for their conclusion that "reliable inclusion or exclusion of dogs as ‘pit bulls’ is not possible, even by experts." The authors wrote, "Dogs were selected for the Internet survey if they were reported to have at least one breed that comprised at least 25% of their DNA profile." Corollary: Some of the dogs in the study had a dominant breed of only 25% of its DNA makeup, meaning that the other breeds it was mixed with were all LESS than 25%. A little math, please? That means the dog had AT LEAST FIVE BREEDS in its DNA! Now THAT is a mixed breed dog! You won't get any consensus of breed match by visually observing a mutt with at least five breeds in it, none more than 1/4 of the dog. Even I could tell you that without conducting a study.
Shills, all of them!
THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST WASN'T DISCLOSED. The study said "no conflict of interest", however on the first line it identified THREE of the eight authors as working with "Maddie's Shelter Medicine Program." Maddie's Fund is a superfund that donates money for studies to forward their own goal which is "A No-Kill Nation Now!" Since pit bulls are the primary breed glutting most shelters in the USA, Maddie's Fund "must" do something to ensure they stay alive and are adopted out. It is unethical for scientists and academics to publish studies without disclosing their conflicts of interest, as they did in this case.
APBT NOT INCLUDED IN A STUDY PRIMARILY ABOUT PIT BULLS: Per the study language "American pit bull terrier and pit bull were not included in the 226 breed signatures," which means that any dog that actually was America Pit Bull Terrier would NOT be identified as such in the DNA test results, skewing the results of the study. Because the Wisdom Panel (the DNA lab they used in the study) doesn't detect "American Pit Bull Terrier" DNA, these DNA results were coming back with weird and rare breeds like "Irish Water Spaniel". Come on! Who allows their rare breed purbred dog to mate with some other breed of dog to make a mutt? In this case, the study would have you believe someone allowed their Irish Water Spaniel to mate with a Siberian Husky or a Boston Terrier! Unbelievable! When your testing lab cannot correctly identify the subjects in your study, then your study sample is flawed. The study authors wrote "Limitations of our study include unknown sensitivity and specificity of the DNA breed testing and lack of a DNA test for American pit bull terrier."
STUDY USED SUPER-MUTTS AS THEIR TEST SAMPLES: The study used mixed breed dogs with very low percentages of a dominant breed, with as little as 12.5% pit bull type by DNA. And if anyone missed calling THAT a pit bull, then THAT became fodder for their conclusion that "reliable inclusion or exclusion of dogs as ‘pit bulls’ is not possible, even by experts." The authors wrote, "Dogs were selected for the Internet survey if they were reported to have at least one breed that comprised at least 25% of their DNA profile." Corollary: Some of the dogs in the study had a dominant breed of only 25% of its DNA makeup, meaning that the other breeds it was mixed with were all LESS than 25%. A little math, please? That means the dog had AT LEAST FIVE BREEDS in its DNA! Now THAT is a mixed breed dog! You won't get any consensus of breed match by visually observing a mutt with at least five breeds in it, none more than 1/4 of the dog. Even I could tell you that without conducting a study.
Shills, all of them!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google