• KRAW@linux.community
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    11 months ago

    For sure. I am not one of those people insistent on all pits being bad for the reasons you state (over-representation in statistics), but I also cannot believe that there isn’t some inclination for pits to exhibit aggressive behavior. I probably will never adopt a pit, but I have a friend who owns one (or a similar breed… not quite sure) but I love that dog.

    • ALoafOfBread
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      For sure! I know a few pitties, too, and they are good dogs. It’s very much a “law of large numbers” type of thing. Likely more aggressive on average, but the answer is probably not breed bans and more likely restrictions on who can breed dogs (and maybe who can own certain dogs).

      • EatYouWell@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        The problem is that if the city can’t even budget enough to feed these dogs, they’re certainly not going to be able to budget enforcing the breeding/ownership laws.

        • ALoafOfBread
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          That is fair. Could be subsidized by the cost of breeding licenses, but the administrative burden would be greater. I feel like the breed ban administration would be difficult as well - since pitbulls aren’t really a breed, what constitutes one? Is it only American Pitbull Terriers? Because most pitbulls aren’t APTs, but some mix of bully breeds. Who would make that determination in each individual case? It’s a tough issue all around.