Why banning "dangerous" dog breeds is bad policy

[@vinecat8451]

Honestly, I don't think we should ban any breeds for being "dangerous breeds". In my experience the aggressiveness of dogs is mostly corrilated to the aggressiveness of their owners. I know some sweetypie pitbulls and some dangerous golden retrievers, all of which tend to "copy" their owner's behaviours. Slightly unrelated to the main reasoning of this video though, I do think there should be tighter regulatuons on dogbreeding and maybe even ban specific dogbreeds. That opinion, however, is purely based on the fact that some breeds have physical disabilities that make them "cute" (such as noses that can't breath). I just think that it's inhumane and animal cruelty to breed animals into these extreme disabilities for our easthetical pleasures. Anywhom, Joy I love the video! Keep making more please!!❤

[@paulinarapicka]

Maybe not ban those unhealthy breeds, BUT make them more healthy- to hell with breed purity! Cross-breed them with some other dogs that are close enough in looks/behaviour, but are more healthy, and make the breed (type) more healthy.

[@zoognosiswithjoy]

I think you're right to a certain extent, but maybe less so about banning unhealthy breeds and moreso promoting ethical breeding with animal health in mind, such as routine genetic testing for heritable disorders, open studbooks, and mandatory veterinary examinations for potential sires/dams.

[@TheTang3rine]

Great video, however dogs are not property u cant really own another animal just as you cant own another human, theyre their own person

[@zoognosiswithjoy]

Ethically, you're right. But the law isn't on the side of ethics on this one. With the exception of a few species, animals are considered property in virtually ever jurisdiction. Unless the animal is being abused or neglected within the narrow scope of the law, the owner has complete ownership of their animal. I hope in my lifetime that we'll move away from this paradigm of ownership toward one of guardianship.

[@davidhatred7275]

its not about eliminating bites, it's about stopping deaths and serious disfigurements. give me the choice between being savaged by a jack russell and an XL pit and guess which i'd choose! how quickly can a XL pit tear a child apart? could a jack russell do the same damage in the same period? theres been 11 confirmed deaths and 3 suspected from XL pitbulls IN THE PAST TWO YEARS whereas i've struggled to find 3 deaths caused by jack russells IN THE LAST 20!, one an old man dying of sepsis, a baby bitten and the other was an attack predominantly committed by a bull terrier! they kill 3 and a half times more people than the next dog on the list. i hope this helps you see beyond dog racism.

[@davidhatred7275]

@BOGDAN SERBAN 100% agree, i've been bitten 3 times, all smallish dogs, none ever even broke my skin, i would not want to take that chance with a pitt!

[@zoognosiswithjoy]

Then we should ban all large dogs, is what you're saying. Any large dog has the capacity to cause serious injury. So why pick and choose which breeds we legislate against, unless it was for an ulterior motive?

[@davidhatred7275]

@@zoognosiswithjoy thanks for replying, i dont know how i'd legislate as it's not my job, i just understand the issue with the breed, 3 and a half times more deaths than the next breed is pretty crazy, i'm not saying it's the dog or the owner, it is just a glaring red flag. we're talking about deaths, horrific ones at that, not how i'd want to go and we've got animals that are in situations that are making them volatile, either way there's a situation that needs looking into.