dturm wrote:
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
While all that is true, there is no way for any business (including yours) to pre-determine whether or not a dog arriving is a stable, well trained dog, or a poorly socialized, untrained one.
While you would rather deal with a well trained Doberman or Pit Bull, I would also like to point out you would much rather be attacked by a Lab or a Poodle than attacked by a Doberman or Pit Bull. The damage that can be inflicted by the breeds most often targeted for breed exclusions is much more serious than can be inflicted by the vast majority of dogs.
There are multiple reasons for breed bans in RV parks. While insurance is the most obvious, and the most significant. If the insurer requires certain breeds to be excluded from the premises and a dog of that breed is allowed in and injury occurs, the insurance company will NOT PAY ANYTHING. All medical claims, injury claims, etc will have to be paid out of the owners pocket. A severe attack would surely put most parks into bankruptcy.
A more subtle, but significant, reason for breed bans is the effect certain dogs have on other guests. Several years ago, I had a lady come in and request to leave early and be refunded her monies. Her reason was she couldn't leave the confines of her RV because the neighbor often sat outside with their two Rottweilers. The dogs were leashed, were very well behaved, but this lady was absolutely terrified of them. While this reaction is extreme and rare, many people do have fear of certain breeds. People do alter they behaviors when certain breeds of dogs are around. They change they walking patterns. They tell their children not to go anywhere near that area, and of most concern to a park owner, often call the office and complain, forcing us to get involved. After a while, it just becomes easier to take the path of least resistance. If there are no pit bulls in the park, there will be no frantic calls to the office telling us that site # so and so has a pit bull in their site and asking what are we going to do about it.
In answer to the question the OP posed, we do not permit a late arriving guest to do anything we would not allow a guest who made a reservation in advance do. If we had breed restrictions, the late arriving walk in would have to follow the same rules as everyone else.
