Dog breed descrimination - showing up late un-announced

[MartyW]

Hi to all,

We've been camping with our German Shepherd dog for over 30 years (of course different shepherds along the way and always one at a time). We had always stayed in public / state parks in the past so we were not aware of the breed descrimination issues until we boutht a 34' TT last summer with the hope of doing some extended stay trips during semi-retirement.

We're scheduled to get on the road within the next few weeks and I've worked out some good routes and stops using the many mobil apps and internet, but in the process we've had quite a few CGs tell us that we can't stay with our shepherd. We're speaking mostly of FL for now. I've also heard that in many cases the breed restrictions aren't always inforced, but we haven't tested anyone or any CG on this.

So my question is if we're on a trip and can't make it that day to our planned CG that has accepted our dog in advance, and we pop in un-announced at a CG that has an anti-Shepherd policy (in late afternoon / evening), has anyone seen any of these restrictive CGs allow one of the banned breeds for just a one night overnight stay? We haven't tried this yet but we've been told that it does work in some cases.

Many thanks in advance for your experiences about this.
Marty

[zach477]

Do breed restrictions apply if it is a service dog?

[Old-Biscuit]

Most 'banned breed' notifications we encountered also included 'any mix of said breeds'

Dobie, Pit Bull, German Shepard, Chow, Rottie, Huskies, Boxers, Malamute & Wolf Hybrids are typical ones on list..........even have seen Weimaraners & Dalmations

[Terryallan]

Go Dogs wrote:
"Or when you are walking down the CG road and the big dogs come flying off a site running at you. And the stupid owner running behind screaming they won't bite. Durn right they won't, Not after they are dropped in the middle of the road. But then not every one carries the means to drop them. but some do. After having to jump between big dogs and little kids. I make a point to be sure it won't happen again."

If only instead of breed restrictions-Campgrounds would just enforce an idiot restriction. Shooting a dog for running loose in a public setting would come under the 'idiot' category.

Not if it is charging you. IF it is charging you. you have every right to defend yourself. Besides. Who said anything about shooting it?????? I said drop it. Many, Many, Many ways to drop it with out a gun.

I just knew some idiot would say it is better to be attacked by a big dog than defend your self. Keep your dog under control, and you will never have to find out.

[Go_Dogs]

"Or when you are walking down the CG road and the big dogs come flying off a site running at you. And the stupid owner running behind screaming they won't bite. Durn right they won't, Not after they are dropped in the middle of the road. But then not every one carries the means to drop them. but some do. After having to jump between big dogs and little kids. I make a point to be sure it won't happen again."

If only instead of breed restrictions-Campgrounds would just enforce an idiot restriction. Shooting a dog for running loose in a public setting would come under the 'idiot' category.

[Terryallan]

Real reason for Breed Bans. Dog owner's. You know the ones. They don't believe the rules are for them. They let their big dog out with out a leash, They let their 50lb kid walk a 100lb dog. How do I know. I see it. Big dog dragging a little kid any where it wants to go with the parents, or Grand parents laughing, and saying Ain't that cute. Right up until the big dog drags the little kid into another site and attacks the dog on a leash there.

Or when you are walking down the CG road and the big dogs come flying off a site running at you. And the stupid owner running behind screaming they won't bite. Durn right they won't, Not after they are dropped in the middle of the road. But then not every one carries the means to drop them. but some do. After having to jump between big dogs and little kids. I make a point to be sure it won't happen again.

So it could all have been avoided IF the dog owners would just take care of their dog. But the park owner has a pretty good idea. They won't.

Understand. I have had Shepherds, Chows, And bull dogs. Bassetts, And even a Pekingese. They are what the owner makes them. Ours were as gentle as new born babes. Few are born mean. They are taught to be. they tend to take after their owners

[westernrvparkow]

dturm wrote:

Breed bans are brought about because it is statistically proven that the risk of loss from those breeds are higher than the risks from others to the point that they are uninsurable.

Then you have all the mix breed dogs that are mostly ignored by the insurance industry.

And you have all the individuals identified by their owners as XXX breed, not one of banned breeds. Is the insurance company or you as a business owner going to refuse service to those owners because you "know" this is one of the banned breeds?

There are so many better ways to deal with dog aggression and dog bite prevention than to institute breed bans.

If I was subjected to a breed ban by my insurance, I would err on the side of barring a dog that was not actually a banned breed but looked like it. My pockets are likely deeper than the guy with the dog, so any lawsuit is going to name me. I need insurance coverage, plain and simple. The insurance company isn't going to suddenly cover me if I say "hey, I thought the dog was a poodle, not a Rottweiler.". That's just business.
As for there are better ways than breed bans, I am all ears, and I would think the insurance industry would be the same. If they could write policies profitably, they would. If they refuse to write a policy, it's because they see it as unprofitable. They aren't making some social or political statement. But it is going to have to be a workable solution. You can't expect to have all 300,000,000 residents of the United States take courses on recognizing and dealing with dog behavior because there are 50,000 potentially dangerous Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Dobermans and Cane Corsos in the US.

[dturm]

Breed bans are brought about because it is statistically proven that the risk of loss from those breeds are higher than the risks from others to the point that they are uninsurable.

This is the problem and a reason breed bans don't really work. The statistics are NOT proven because the input data is seriously flawed. Breed identification in bite incidents is seriously inaccurate. To try to reach reliable conclusions with this information is pointless.

Actually breed bans do exist because some clerk or bean counter is trying to develop any method possible to mitigate damages and payouts thus resulting in more profit. I'd really like to see if the breed bans do actually reduce the number of claims involving dog bites.

Then you have all the mix breed dogs that are mostly ignored by the insurance industry.

And you have all the individuals identified by their owners as XXX breed, not one of banned breeds. Is the insurance company or you as a business owner going to refuse service to those owners because you "know" this is one of the banned breeds?

There are so many better ways to deal with dog aggression and dog bite prevention than to institute breed bans.

[westernrvparkow]

dturm wrote:

westernrvparkowner wrote:
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.

The first statement is true, the second is poppycock.

While I can't pre-determine a dog's reaction to a certain situation, I (as most vets) have developed a pretty good ability to read the situations pretty quickly. I wouldn't have lasted 37 years with my body relatively intact without that ability. While I've had more training and experience than most, there is a minimal skill level that needs to be taught early to everybody This would help avoid situations where bites happen.

A lab, golden, poodle or any breed can inflict damage as severe as any of the named breeds. Terriers tend to shake after biting which causes so much tissue trauma. While size of the dog biting CAN make a difference, it's just a fallacy that bites from dogs not on the list are less serious.

I understand that there are lots of people that aren't dog people and running a business to try to satisfy everybody is tough, but to think that dog related problems will be eliminated or even reduced by breed restrictions just doesn't seem valid. If that's what the insurance people demand, you just don't have much choice.

Just going to have to disagree with you, unless your point is Pit Bull TERRIERS are an extremely dangerous dog once one attacks. There are numerous studies regarding the bite force of different breeds, and the banned breeds occupy most of the top spots. There is a reason that organized dog fights are fought by Pit Bulls and other dogs with strong bites and inbred aggressiveness. The same with dogs that are trained and used a protection animals, those dogs are well suited for those tasks precisely because of their breed.
There are also numerous studies, both by insurance companies and by independent analysts that have shown what breeds of dogs cause the most damage both physically and financially. This is the information used to determine if a breed should be excluded from insurance coverage. These breed bans do not arise because some clerk just doesn't like a certain breed. And those statistics do not become invalid because someone has a Pit Bull that is a sweetheart. Breed bans are brought about because it is statistically proven that the risk of loss from those breeds are higher than the risks from others to the point that they are uninsurable.

[MartyW]

Thanks Terry, those are the exact reasons my wife & I came to the MH conclusion. In the past we've had Class C's and there was an older Class A in the family, all with generators, and what you mentioned is exactly what we experienced once in our Minnie.

We dropped in at a dealer today and I've opened a new thread in the Class A forum asking a bunch of diesel questions. We looked at a few DP's in our price range and they quoted us a price for our TT trade.

[Terryallan]

MartyW wrote:
Thanks Old-Biscuit, your response is exactly what I expected. I had read that it is a liability insurance issue. My wife and I are now considering replacing the TT with a class A MH and someone responded in the class A forum that the breed rules weren't enforced but that is contrary to my findings. At our ages I now believe we need an inside crank generator for Air Conditioning at rest stops or truck stops since we will be traveling in the summer heat. Many thanks for your response

IF you plan on overnighting in a Rest Area, Truck stop, or Wal Mart. I fully agree with the Motor home suggestion.. For the simple reason, That if ANYTHING happens in one of those areas. With a MH, all you have to do is sit in the drivers seat and leave.
IF anything happens while sleeping in a TT, or 5er. You would have to go out side to get to your TV to drive away. So for safety. A MH makes more sense on a trip staying in public lots.

When in the big truck we stayed in a rest area, or truck stop. There were a few times having the driver's seat in the sleeping area was a big bonus. Just drive away from the trouble. No fuss, no muss.

[dturm]

westernrvparkowner wrote:
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.

The first statement is true, the second is poppycock.

While I can't pre-determine a dog's reaction to a certain situation, I (as most vets) have developed a pretty good ability to read the situations pretty quickly. I wouldn't have lasted 37 years with my body relatively intact without that ability. While I've had more training and experience than most, there is a minimal skill level that needs to be taught early to everybody This would help avoid situations where bites happen.

A lab, golden, poodle or any breed can inflict damage as severe as any of the named breeds. Terriers tend to shake after biting which causes so much tissue trauma. While size of the dog biting CAN make a difference, it's just a fallacy that bites from dogs not on the list are less serious.

I understand that there are lots of people that aren't dog people and running a business to try to satisfy everybody is tough, but to think that dog related problems will be eliminated or even reduced by breed restrictions just doesn't seem valid. If that's what the insurance people demand, you just don't have much choice.

[Go_Dogs]

" stupid people ruin it for the rest of us."

Yes indeed! There was a thread last week about someone's dog breaking it's collar, and fighting with another dog. The OP was placing blame on the 'nosy' neighbors that witnessed it for turning him in, and not minding their business.

Anyone wanting to go to public places with an animal-should make absolutely sure they have socialized, trained and have complete control over the animal. I don't care if it's a parakeet or a cane corso.

[cruiserjs]

Why try to show up "unannounced'? In mid afternoon you should know about where you will be for the night. Call ahead and ask them!! We ahve alwsys found a place by doing that.

[davosfam]

I am fearful of GSD and rottweilers and somewhat fearful of pitbulls. I have never been bitten but my experience with these breeds has been less than ideal.

With that said, I wouldn't have a problem with any of these breeds being next to me at a campground if they were well behaved. In fact, I would welcome meeting one who was well behaved. It would help me get over this unreasonable fear.

We own a lot in a private campground and our neighbor down the road has a rottweiler whom he has told us isn't very friendly. We never approach him when the dog is with him and I have never seen his dog off-leash. I'm not sure why he would bring a dog like that camping but then again, he seems to be responsible with it while at the campground.

To the OP, please be sure to disclose the breed of your dog. I think it's unfair to the desk clerk to deal with that. It's too bad that so many campgrounds are banning breeds but I understand it. Just like a lot of things, stupid people ruin it for the rest of us.

[BB_TX]

sharibartling wrote:
...............
.... I'll tell you though, don't tell me I have an aggressive breed when a lot of time people are walking their little 5 # pipsqueek running out screaming at you. There's your aggressive breed

The problem is not that the large powerful breeds are inherently more aggressive, the problem is that because they are large and powerful that when they are aggressive they can do deep tissue and muscle damage, and yes even death, when they do attack. The little "pipsqueek" may break the skin. The large breed may send someone to the hospital. And it is always "he has never done that before".

As far as insurance, it may not be that the insurance company prohibits certain breeds, but that their rates may be based on whether a breed specific rule is in place. And liability insurance for businesses can be very expensive. I know from experience.