Pitbulls No Longer Deemed A "Dangerous Breed' In Ohio 

This is an issue that has flown under the radar in Ohio (mostly because it passed during election year), but it's one that I'm extremely passionate about.

In 1987, the state of Ohio declared that Pitbulls were a dangerous breed. This triggered a lot of rules for Pitbull owners, including (but not limiting) "owners needing to carry $100,000 in liability insurance, securely contain the dog when on-property and to use a chain-link leash when off-property. Various municipalities within Ohio have increased these restrictions as well, such as limiting the ownership of a vicious dog to one per household." Some places have even banned the breed entirely.

By taking Pitbulls off the "vicious dog" list, they are no longer bound to these restrictions in Ohio unless the dog specifically meets the definition of a dangerous dog (a dog that has caused serious injury or killed a person or another dog). (I haven't heard when these changes are supposed to take effect.)

So you are for keeping pitbulls on the dangerous breed classification?

This is not a topic I know a lot about. I'm inclined to be of the persuasion "better safe than sorry," and I also as a general rule am not very fond of pitbulls (not due to violence, due to physical look, drool factor, and behavior), which would mean that I also would agree with keeping them classified as a dangerous dog.

However, when I casually brought up to my friend, whose dog is part pitbull, the amounts of documented pitbull attacks and how "I thought they were a violent breed, aren't they?" She returned very calmly with, "That's actually a common misconception. Pitbulls, like many other dogs, can, of course, be violent, but by nature are no more violent than any other dog its size. Also, how it's raised and treated affects temperament. Believe it or not, a cocker spaniel can be very dangerous because of something they can inherit called 'rage syndrome'." [Paraphrased, not quoted.]

Whether all that she was saying was true or not (I still have my doubts), it did make me realize that I don't know anything about pitbulls other than what I had "heard through the grapevine." I've never done any actual research on how violent or dangerous they are as a breed, I just took hearsay as fact.

That doesn't make me like them any more than I did, though. They're still droolers, and I prefer small dogs in general anyway. But it did make me rethink my preconceptions of what makes a "dangerous dog."

I also googled "rage syndrome" because that was the one thing I thought my friend was making up, but it's a real thing, and it doesn't just affect cocker spaniels. My friend really did her research when she adopted that mutt of hers!

I am not at all for keeping pits (or any breed) on the dangerous dog list. I'm actually very passionate about the dogs, and was trying not to sound biased when I explained the problem. I guess I ended up going in the opposite direction. Oops!

I can understand people being wary of the dogs. Pit bulls do have one of the strongest bites out of the domestic dog breeds (or the strongest bite, I don't remember). It makes them perfect candidates for dog fighting, which is why they are used so often. The media took the "dog fighting" image and ran full tilt with it. It makes complete sense for people to be wary of the dogs.

Pits can be dangerous dogs, it's true. But any dog, be it chihuahua, pit, great dane, or golden retriever can be dangerous. It's all in the way they are trained, not in the breed themselves. Just like with any other dog.

Yup, I pretty much don't like them because I find them unattractive and they drool a lot. At least, my uncle's pitbull drooled a lot. LOL, but it's not that I'm necessarily afraid of them... perhaps a bit more wary. But I'm also wary of dobermans and boxers, so...

I am hesistant to be on either side- while it's true that upbringing affects a dog the most, I do think that pit bulls are more inclined to be dangerous- that's what they were bred for, and when they are dangerous, they're extremenly dangerous- they lock their jaw and won't let go. Statistics also show this:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published in 2000 a study on dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) that covered the years 1979–1998. The study found reports of 238 people killed by dogs over the 24-year period, of which "pit bull terrier" or mixes thereof were reportedly responsible for killing 76, or about 32 percent, of the people killed by dogs in the attacks identified in the study.
-wikipedia

It's much easier to debate the other side- that pit bulls are as harmless as any other dog- but I think that they should be on some sort of list that recognises that they can be potentially more dangerous then other dog breeds.

Edit: I looove dogs. I'm crazy about them. But I admit myself wary whenever I'm out walking my own dog and there's a pit bull coming the other way. Not for me so much- They are known to attack other dogs, which generally doesn't get onto the media but it nonetheless true.

Actually, the case does not say “pit bulls” it says “pit bull-type” dogs. In America, pit bull type dogs are defined as -American Pit Bull Terrier.
-Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
-American Staffordshire Terrier.
-American Bulldog.
-Any dog whose sire or dam is a dog of a breed which is defined as a banned breed of dog under this section.
-Any dog whose owner registers, defines, admits or otherwise identifies the dog as being of a banned breed.
-Any dog conforming or substantially conforming to the breed of American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or American Bulldog as defined by the United Kennel Club or American Kennel Club.
-Any dog which is of the breed commonly referred to as "pit bull" and commonly recognizable and identifiable as such. (link)

The last part means “any dog that looks like a pit bull.” Dobermans, rottweilers, boxers (link the boxer was actually taken away from his owners for eight months because the land lord didn't believe he was a boxer) , great swiss mountain dogs, and sixteen other breeds (link) are commonly confused with pit bulls.

The article you mentioned, ThePrincesTale (linked below) also points out the problem of identifying dog breed on sight.

Further more, the study itself (which can be found link) says that fatal dogs bites (which is what the pit bull is being accused of) accounts for “less than0.00001% of all dog bites annually, (2) fatal bites have remained relatively constant over time, whereas nonfatal bites have been increasing.”

They also point out that breeds responsible for fatal bites have varied over time. Dachshunds, and labrador retrievers (along with 28 other breeds) were once the main causes of fatal bites as well.

Lastly, the article also mentions that, though their study shows the amount of dog bites during this twenty-year span, it does not factor in reasons for the bite, including owner related issues. A dog who's been beaten or neglected is more likely to bite someone than a dog who's been well-cared for.

Further more, all four breeds score in the high 80's on the American Temperment Testing Association temperament tests (link). Pits do tend to have more aggression toward other dogs, but -- not only does aggression not equal an attack-- that aggressiveness can easily be trained out of them with proper socialization. Just as with any dog that shows aggression towards other dogs.

Unless the dog has been trained as a fighting dog, it's not going to attack some random dog walking down the street.

Finally, the research I was too lazy to get myself.

Also, I know that small dogs can be vicious, but I find it hard to see a Dachshund as a killer biter. They're so little! XD Still, stats don't lie. Not surprised about Labrador Retrievers, despite their general temperament. I don't think general temperament has as much to do with dog attacks as other factors - like that rage syndrome I cited earlier, for example, or how the dog was raised, or if it's a watchdog/guard dog and goes after a stranger.

My dog (an Australian Terrier - the deceptively submissive looking sweetie seen link) was aggressive towards other small dogs, but only for the sake of dominance. He was king of the hill, and he'd mount you if you didn't immediately yield to him (not bite you - still led to some awkward apologies at the dog park). That's one reason why we would put him in with the big dogs. Other owners would be nervous about their own big dogs with a little one, but once they saw our little terrier staring down a timid St Bernard who would roll over for him, they understood.

My dog would also nip at the bigger dogs' heels, but again, this was less out of aggression in general and more to show who's boss. Also, he was a sheepdog by breed, and that's just what sheepdogs do to get something to go where they want it too.

My point is, even the littlest, most unassuming dogs can be aggressive (Hell, look at the stats on the little Dachshund!)

If anything, this conversation has thought me to think twice about my preconceptions about pit bulls. And also not to underestimate the little guys!

^Ohhhh that's such a cute dog! I've got a little white maltese shitzu... he doesn't have "little dog , big attitude" like a lot of small yappy dogs have... he's absolutely beautiful and I adore him!
Anyway, after that slighty useless comment... I just think that pit bulls should be acknowledged on a list... (and surely there's a way to determine whether a dog is a pit bull or "pit bull- looking"?)

You determine if a dog is pit looking... by looking at it. If it looks like a pit bull, than it's pit bull looking.

The way to actually determine if a dog is a pit bull is to swab the inside of their cheek and test their DNA. (Which is ridiculously expensive, unless you get the unreliable in-home test. Which, by the way, doesn't count when you have to prove to a land-lord or such that you're dog isn't a pit.)

Why should pits be on a list? We've already determined that they aren't any more aggressive than any other dog, aren't more dangerous, aren't more anything. If you're going to put them on a list because they have the potential to be dangerous, are you going to put every dog is existence on that list as well? Because every dog has the potential to be dangerous.