This is a topic that is a sore subject for me. I understand that about 1/3 of the homeowners insurance claims involve dog bites, and insurance companies in an attempt to mitigate potential damages have instituted these bans, as have several municipalities and businesses.
I'd like to see statistics that prove that these breed bans actually work. There are about as many municipalities dumping their breed bans as new ones being made.
This is a summary of the reasons that dogs bite published by the AVMA
A dog's tendency to bite depends on at least six interacting factors: heredity, early experience, socialization and training, physical and behavioral health, victim behavior, and environment. Breed-specific approaches ignore five of the six and are not likely to result in effective injury control. Banning specific breeds may give owners of other breeds a false sense of security and decrease their desire to seek appropriate socialization and training for their pets.
As a practicing veterinarian for 37 years, I'd rather deal with a stable well trained doberman, GS, pit bull, etc. than MANY other untrained, poorly socialized, poorly bred individuals of (fill in the breed).
The reality is that breed restrictions exist in campgrounds and are enforced, but there are many "more enlightened" campground businesses that realize that a huge number of RVers have dogs and set policies to make it safe and reasonable for all of us.
Doug, DVM
