Breed Discrimination?

[hammer21661]

Who has run into it, where and what breeds? Looking for a new buddyI like the German Shepherd but have to look at a mix with "they say" lab and american bull dog. More turmoil.

[Johnny_H]

I wish they would ban the little yapping ankle biters and leave the bullies alone.

[campn4walleye]

It sounds strange, but our weim doesn't like goldens. Who doesn't like a golden? Our knucklehead, that's who.

[xteacher]

hammer21661 wrote:

xteacher wrote:
You may have trouble at some campgrounds, b/c Am Bulldogs look pittie to those who don't know better. Plus Am. Bulldogs are also a bully breed, so may be on "the list" too. Not fair, but reality.

What do you mean "bully breed" like bull dog or demeanor?

Bully breeds are breeds like Pits, Boxers, Am. Bulldogs, Staffies, etc. Has nothing to do with demeanor; just background breeding.

[Tin-bender]

Interesting thread,

The OP's statement
"Who has run into it, where and what breeds? Looking for a new buddyI like the German Shepherd but have to look at a mix with "they say" lab and american bull dog. More turmoil."

We have been traveling for the last three years with our Border Collie and GSD and have had no refusal for camp space. We have ran into breed restrictions but they are generally for Pitts, Rotties, and sometimes Dobies. Never ran into weight/size restrictions anywhere in our travels. Having said that I will add that we always call ahead and check with the RV parks before arrival just to be sure.

East coast may be different but we have rv'd through CA, NV, OR, ID, MT, and just booked a month through Colorado and Utah for this summer, no problems. Just to clarify, we don't usually book at high end RV Resorts so that may have some connection.

My thought is if you want a GSD than get one but just be fully aware of the breed and of the particular animal before you fall in love and bring it home, guess that could be said for any breed/dog though.

One good thing about the raise in popularity of the Pit Bull over the last few years it has taken the pressure/spotlight off of the GSD 🙂

Tinbender

[bob213]

hammer21661 wrote:

xteacher wrote:
You may have trouble at some campgrounds, b/c Am Bulldogs look pittie to those who don't know better. Plus Am. Bulldogs are also a bully breed, so may be on "the list" too. Not fair, but reality.

What do you mean "bully breed" like bull dog or demeanor?

Bully has nothing to do with demeanor. It refers to the "bull" in the breed.
As so correctly stated by DogFolks it's mostly an insurance problem.

[Dog_Folks]

In many cases these lists were started by insurance companies of the campgrounds.

Let's face it: Insurance companies are experts in statistics, and the breeds that bite the most or cause the most damage.

So if an insurance company says XXX breed is a high risk, and the figures are accurate, I would tend to believe them, although I would not like it. There are so many variables and the individual dog is not considered.

After all, the analysis and reduction of risk are two major components of the success of an insurance company.

Simply, it is what they do.

Not saying I like it, or agree with it, but then again there are other things in life I am not happy with either. Just the way it is.

[dturm]

bigdogger wrote:
But over the years discrimination has taken on a very negative connotation. If you have a small animal practice, you, by your definition discriminate. You won't treat a horse or cow. You probably also keep your cats in one area and the dogs in another. That would make you a segregationist. Neither of those two things are unreasonable, but you wouldn't lead your facebook page with "Dr. Doug, DVM I discriminate and am a strict segregationist." Words have meaning beyond the dictionary definition.

Discrimination does not always have a negative connotation. Some people have a discriminating palate, (not so much me as I like FOOD :B), or discriminating taste in music, clothing, etc. As your example of limits to my ability to treat large animals is in fact discriminatory, it's also a good thing as my treating large animals would not be pretty. Granted, spin can paint that discrimination as good or bad.

The point here is that breed restrictions are discriminatory, and are a reality. Also, does using a false premise to justify discrimination a problem, and does that discrimination actually help solve the problem of animal aggression??

[BCSnob]

Breed banning probably started with actuaries.

Some of the issue IS genetic and therefore runs within subpopulations of the banned breeds; unfortunately the entire population of these breeds are impacted by the bans not just the subpopulations.

[bigdogger]

dturm wrote:
By definition restricting certain individuals based on what ever criteria is discriminatory. Our society does not allow this with people in public businesses, but no such protective laws exist for pets. The restrictions are discrimination, it's just not against the law.

Doug

But over the years discrimination has taken on a very negative connotation. If you have a small animal practice, you, by your definition discriminate. You won't treat a horse or cow. You probably also keep your cats in one area and the dogs in another. That would make you a segregationist. Neither of those two things are unreasonable, but you wouldn't lead your facebook page with "Dr. Doug, DVM I discriminate and am a strict segregationist." Words have meaning beyond the dictionary definition.

[Go_Dogs]

I have no trouble finding campgrounds that will allow my 180lb. mastiff and my 60lb. pit bull. It just takes some common sense, call-ahead planning. I understand that many people are afraid of dogs, (big or small), they don't care for barking, pooping, etc.
Other people don't care for campgrounds with lots of children, older RVs, young people, etc.
There's different campgrounds for everyone, even clothing optional ones!
I do not blame the campground owners, nor ambivalent dog owners.
I would not want to force anyone to camp where they do not feel comfortable.
I believe the OP was looking for some advice about camping with a type of dog that may be on the breed restriction list, not a diatribe about why the list exists.

[rockhillmanor]

If the public would have listened and protested this when the ball started rolling years ago this ridiculous list of banned breeds would not even exist. Had the public listened that banning one breed would leave the door open to ban whatever breed they wanted to. "They" being people who knew nothing about dogs, just 'who' was lobbying and how much money they had.

The media frenzy started out with the gang dog fights and soon with peta backed money snowballed into breeds owned by law abiding citizens that had nothing to do with illegal dog fighting. Fast forward and now people who have camped with their pets for years are finding it hard to find a CG that will accept them.

Honestly it is the people that did nothing to stop their state representatives from signing bills allowing this to go as far as it has. And it's not done yet, there is even more outrageous pet laws already in the process, and you won't like any of these either. 😞

[dturm]

By definition restricting certain individuals based on what ever criteria is discriminatory. Our society does not allow this with people in public businesses, but no such protective laws exist for pets. The restrictions are discrimination, it's just not against the law.

Doug

[Wizard_1946]

M GO BLUE wrote:
If it is a stated rule and they apply it to everyone it is not discrimination...

They own the campground, they can set the rules, just like you can at your house.

[Go_Dogs]

I'll just add my 2 cents, (again) as an experienced dog owner and RVer. I have camped with very large dogs, many of them on the common restricted lists, (pit bulls, mastiffs, GSDs). I have also volunteered at animal shelters.
You are venturing into an area with 2 big possible problems.
First of all: adopting a dog with an abusive past, a pit-type with an abusive past.
Second of all: You are planning on taking a pit-type dog, (with an abusive past) to public places with children/other dogs.
Many shelters/rescues will call pit mixes ANYTHING other that pit bulls. Petfinders is not necessarily a reputable place to find a pet. Just about anyone can post there.
If you are not familiar with large, powerful dogs with abusive histories-you should leave them for the experts, or plan on spending a lot of time with a specialist.
IMO: you should slow down and reconsider your options. Many dogs will appear great in a controlled environment, with familiar people-but you cannot predict their behavior in new situations.

I hate to sound so negative but I see people making this mistake all the time. The media/animal groups really put pressure on people to adopt, but it's an area that requires a lot of dedication and expertise. I'm specifically referring to powerful dogs with abusive pasts. Potentially dangerous area for the novice.

[Crowe]

If it is a stated rule and they apply it to everyone it is not discrimination...

It's discrimination against the breed, not the owner.

Why get a dog that is banned at most CG's? If you RV a lot all that is going to do is make finding a CG for the night difficult

I would have to agree. Despite being bitten by one as a child, My dream dog is a German shepherd. Never got one while RVing for the reason stated above. Even now that we are not RVing I won't get one because I want an easier dog to handle. I have the capability for a GSD but don't want to put in the work at this stage of my life.

Under 25 lbs is one rule found at most CG's.

This I have to disagree with. Yes, I've seen it, but I'd change that to "some" not "most".

Honestly go with whatever dog YOU are going to be happy with keeping mind that it might require some changes in your lifestyle. If you plan on traveling a lot then a more user-people friendly-possible smaller dog might be the way to go. If you are willing to leave the pup at home sometimes, then do whatever your heart tells you. Just like everything else in life you have to make choices and give up one thing for another.