It was puppy-love at first sight.
My pre-teen friendship with my Gordon Setter, Taffy (full name: Salt Water Taffy Brite Star), was the kind you read about in books like Where the Red Fern Grows and Lad, a Dog. Military life notwithstanding, I knew that my son should, nay MUST, grow-up with a dog. And so off to the on-post animal shelter we trotted, determined to bring home a loveable mutt.
What we ended up with was Chloe, the most docile towards children, defensive towards strangers and down right vicious to wild bunnies pup you’ll ever meet. She was found wandering around post. They guessed that she was just about a year old and proclaimed her a “terrier mix.”
Which was lucky for us, because after living with her for more than a year, I’m pretty sure she’s a fair part Chow-Chow – one of the many dog breeds often banned by posts and bases.
But there’s no way to tell that she’s a Chow mix — or anything for the matter — for certain. We don’t know her mom’s lineage. Who knows who the puppy baby daddy was. The designation of “terrier mix” was based entirely on impressions – that her coat looked long (we’ve since cut it), that her ears sat this way (they don’t always do that), that she looked like she wanted to dig (she never digs) – not on any actual evidence.
There is equal evidence to being a Chow. That long coat is kinda poofy, too. Her tongue has black spots. She’s kinda Chow like around the eyes.
Yet had the veterinarian written “Chow” on her papers instead of “terrier,” we would be blocked from living on many Army posts while we own her.
Housing breed bans have not been the norm in the military community forever, and it’s difficult to pin-point exactly what brought them about. But the birth of the policy appears to be largely tied to the 2009 privatization of military housing, and the need of those housing management companies to secure insurance. Because aggressive dogs can result in injuries and, therefore, an insurance liability, companies take the easy road out of the problem and ban breeds they consider questionable. It’s not about overall safety for those living in housing – it’s about keeping insurance costs low.
But there is no master list of banned breeds held by all the services and all the bases. Chows, for example, are banned in some places but not others. And, like we have run before here on SpouseBuzz, there’s no evidence that breed bans work at all. Sure, some breeds tend to be more aggressive than others, but evidence shows that breed bans don’t work – it’s holding owners accountable that is needed.
If Chloe had been labeled a “Chow,” instead of a “terrier,” we’d be in a tight, housingless spot. And if living on post was our only real option, we’d be trying to figure out how to make it work without giving up the hairiest member of our family.
So how would we do it? Here are four suggestions on how to get your “banned” dog on base without actually breaking any rules.
1. Call it something – anything – other than the banned breed. Unless you and your Rottweiler are headed to the Westminster Dog Show next month, visual identification of any breed can be faulty, and DNA tests can be wrong. According to this, vets are even moving away from labeling a dog any specific breed at all unless there’s a DNA test to back it up. So call your dog that might be a part-American Pit Bull Terrier a “terrier mix” (since, technically, it is) and you’re not breaking any rules. Just make sure you have vet paperwork to back you up.
2. Ask your vet or shelter to help you out. We didn’t know that the on-post vet clinic was doing us a solid when they labeled a Chloe a “terrier mix” instead of a “Chow mix.” But they probably knew it. Vets and clinics want you to adopt the dog, and they want you to keep the dog. Labeling it a banned breed makes both of those things less likely.
3. Make your neighbor some muffins. So your possibly part-Doberman dog your vet labeled a “hound mix,” (well played as Dobermans are part of the hound family) is making your neighbors uneasy? Make them some mini muffins, introduce them to your sweet hound-mix girl and count yourself lucky – you now have new friends, you got to eat a muffin, and no one is complaining to housing.
4. Don’t roll over (or play dead). If the mini-muffins don’t work, or the maintenance guy goes back to the office and says your dog looks like one of the banned breeds, go the mattresses. Since no one can prove a breed anyway, your appeal has legs (especially if your vet is on board).
Edit: A petition organized by the group Dogs on Deployment seeking breed-nuetral housing policies is making the rounds and has already collected over 26,000 signatures. To see it go here. To follow the issue’s progress, check out this Facebook page.
About Amy Bushatz
Comments
Why would I purposely lie to my landlord about the breed of my dog, risking eviction, or even worse, an incident concerning my dog attacking others? Don’t get me wrong, I love my dogs and I think dogs are only aggressive due to how they’re raised but not all owners are perfect…
My home is my home and risking it for a dog is a little much when those are simply the rules. Especially if your already living on post and want to bring a new dog into the family. If our housing company is like any others, they don’t mince words, especially with so many small children and unfenced yards. This post encourages deceit and the potential for future problems with companies and their tenants. Very irresponsible post…
I'm sorry you feel this post encourages deceit — I am actually trying to encourage truth. Since there is no way to tell if your mixed breed dog is actually a certain breed, it is unreasonable for housing offices to ban based on that. Like the case I use with our dog — no one actually knows if she is part banned breed or not. Certainly I don't. I can just make assumptions. But I do know that she is not aggressive (unless you are a wild bunny — then beware) and that we should not be blocked from housing for having her.
You'll notice that above I referred to mixed-breed dogs, and specifically said that pure bred dogs are not a part of this. I am not advocating breaking any rules, which I also feel like I made clear. I am advocating innocent owners and their pets be permitted the same housing as everyone else.
Agreed. I had a banned breed and I loved her to death. She died 18 mos ago. She was a pure breed, but even if she wasn't, I would never lie about who and what she was for on post housing. Was it tough finding a place to live? Yes, sometimes. But in each case the law and the landlord was on my side because I was honest, kept excellent vet records, and got positive references from each landlord for my pet when we moved.
Those references are far more valuable than deceiving the landlord and housing office.
Since it sounds like you have never dealt with the closemindedness of these landlords and companies, you may not want to say anything. I have had dogs for over 30 years and have run into the ignorance of landlords and insurance companies many times. The kicker? I compete with my dogs in dog sports, obedience, rally, earthdog, tracking, you name it and if I can I'll get my dog to do it. Oh, and my doberman, pit mix, GSD, and other 'dangerous' banned breeds have all had their Canine Good Citizen tests (yes, I know it can be a joke, but insurance companies love it) AND most all of them were therapy dogs. So, no this post doesn't encourage deceit, it tells responsible dog owners how to get around the narrowmindedness of people who probably couldn't tell a Pit Bull (which is not an AKC recognized breed) from a Chesapeake Bay Retriever (which is)!
great point to bring up. Getting a Canine Good Citizen test awarded to your dog is an excellent tool in trying to get a landlord to make an exception. But as far as I know, have a licensed/certified Therapy Dog will always get you an exception in base housing, no matter the breed. Therapy dogs can be any size, breed, and there is a need for them most everywhere.
That is not entirely true. Yes, Therapy Dogs can be any breed and size. There is no discrimination there. However, if a landlord or housing office says "No PitBulls, Dobermans, Rottweilers, etc" they are allowed to enforce it regardless of what the dog is used for. There are loops holes in the laws about discriminating against anyone with a handicap that may need a therapy dog, because technically the land lord or housing office is not being discriminatory towards the person for their handicap, rather the type of dog.
No. Like I said, I've had trouble some places, but I was willing to make an effort to find a good place with a good landlord who loved me and my dogs. I had my girl for almost a decade before she passed.
I also said I had a registered pure bred that happened to be a banned breed. I had to work hard every time we moved to find a place and even off post housing sometimes banned her. But I always believe in being 100% honest and it is always the right decision, because god forbid something had gone wrong, I wouldn't look more guilty for having lied about my dog in the first place.
Dogs are not people.They make these rules for a reason. If you don't agree with them, don't live on post. Or don't get the stupid dog. Also, you are advocating breaking the rules by changing the semantics and definition of what these dogs are called.
Wait dogs arent people?? Grow up!! Its better to be able to keep your dog than to have to surrender to certain death or attempt to rehome it with god know who. Also youre stupid.
Yeah its better to keep your dog and have it bite some little kids face off than have to give it away or sell it or live off post. Let me just say that if you were my neighbor and your dog, authorized or unauthorized, hurt my child in anyway, the housing office would be the least of your worries.
Then teach your children not to play with strange dogs. It's not within your control what pets other people choose to have, what IS within your control, however, is how you teach your children to behave around pets that they don't know.
Hahaha absolutely ridiculous! It's my fault if your dog attacks my kid because I should have taught her to stay away from dogs?!? So if you get raped its because your parents didn't teach you to stay away from rapists, right? Look, we aren't talking about wild roaming dogs that are just out there, lurking around waiting to eat children. We are talking about what you people call "normal" dogs. Guess what- it is the "normal" dogs that turn on you and hurt people. No matter how much you love and make out with your stupid dog, it is always going to be an animal with no cognitive ability and will always have the possibility of reverting back to its instincts in order to protect itself or its food. Your right to have whatever dog you want ends when that dog threatens someone else's right to life. And yes, it is different than with a gun, because a gun can't kill someone by itself but a dog can.
I think the point of all this is that if the housing office wants to ban certain dogs they can do that. You do not have to live on post. Go buy a house out off post and set up your little doggie love shack and make sweet doggie love to your dirty dumb animals all you want. There are rules to living on post. Deal with them.
Wow…you must be either heartless or had some really bad experiences with a dog….I'll take my dogs over your kid any day and my dogs are probably much politer and more well behaved then your kid, especially if they are being raised with a tool like you for a parent. I too have a Chow mix, he's an emotional therapy dog, and the children of my husbands soldiers have been known to tackle him, ride him, poke him in the eyeballs, rip out fist fulls of fur and he's never done anything outside of a growl and a headbutt. If he bit one of those kids, I wouldn't blame him. Teach your children some rules and boundaries and stop expecting everyone to bow to you and your desires simply because you chose to breed (which based on your attitude I shudder to think about how those kids will turn out)
You let little kids tear your dog's fur out? Damn, yo. That's cold-blooded.
Not gonna lie – I LOLed :D
That only works if you can be sure your neighbors dog is never left lose. How about if your child is outside playing and you are in the house cooking. All you have to do is look up on the list provided by the CDC to see that some breeds are more dangerous then other breeds. Yes small dogs seem to bark more then big dogs and they might even bite more often, but would you rather be bitten by a shih tzu or a pit bull?
The CDC statistics your referring to have been corrected and now the CDC won't track dog bites by breed because they now understand that there is no way to accurately identify by visual identification. Please visit the National Canine Research Council and take a moment to learn the facts behind this terrible misguided and ineffective policy.
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-legi…
NCRC is run by a pit-bull advocate, hardly unbiased. It used to be run by convicted felon Glen Bui. I wouldn't get my info from them were I you.
Ok, so then how do you explain then every other professional animal organization that has opposed breed bans? How do you explain the science behind the faulty assessments done by visual breed identification or the fact that two DNA companies could deliver different results? Or the fact that every organization that has ever administered a temperament test has found that "banned" breeds are largely NOT the breeds deemed most aggressive? The science doesn't back up the policies. Instead the policies were made to discriminate against an entire population of pet owners based on the fact that some of the most irresponsible people happened to own a particular breed. That is how Italy ended up with more than 60 breeds banned before they stopped the madness. There is no data to show that a community that's instituted a ban saw a decrease in bites. That is also why most recently even the American Bar Association spoke out against BSL.
and why the hell would you leave your child outside….unattended. That sounds like some AWESOME parenting right there. In fact all the unruly, unattended brats running around were one of the main reasons we moved off post, we got sick of looking after other peoples kids.
Dogs are smarter than most people so who ever made the statement that dogs are stupid had bettr et over themselves. They can sense danger, they are workers ie. they sense a seizure coming on for someone prone to seizures. They can find someone that is lost when no one else can. Get a grip.
Suggestions 1 & 2 are, at best, unethical. The deliberate twisting of the semantics and lexicon involved in order to obtain a desired result are a poor example for everyone. You are teaching people to change the words they use until they obtain their desired outcome.
I disagree 100% with breed bans. I think they're idiotic. Until owners are held accountable, nothing will likely change. And insurance is a money game – they don't get into the game to lose it. I doubt much will change on the insurance front – their objective is to deny as many claims as possible to increase their bottom line – it's business.
However, if a location (post, private housing, rental unit, etc) chooses to ban a specific breed for insurance purposes, you bringing on a mixed breed with banned breed blood in it jeopardizes everyone's insurance. The (over) reaction is likely a ban on all dogs.
Beware the law of unintended consequences.
Imagine the firestorm that would cause to ban all pets in military housing. Bring it on!!!
Well I for one agree with Amy. We have mix dogs and depending on how it is worded could mean we are restricted from on-post housing. The on-post vet was the one who titled our dogs breed from a best guess so that there was no problems. We also do not know for sure what their ethnicity is. We have lived on post for the last 4 years with out a problem or incident with our boys. I know a couple of other families that have had incidents with dogs that were allowed. It really does come down to how they were raised, just like children. I do not condone lieing at all and do not feel that this article supports it either. Our dogs have prevented our house from being broken into when every other house on our cul-de-sac was.
I agree Jason-this article isn't about lying. I have what we've called a husky/sheppard mix for nearly 10 years, because those are the dominant features we see-though, over the years my husband has commented that she likely has some chow since she has those black spots on her tongue. If a vet were to call her a chow mix, when people constantly tell me she looks like a wolf (the siberian husky/sheppard features dominate) then we too would be banned from housing on post-though we've never lived on post for many reasons. I think a main point of the article is that most vets who see the "true colors" of a dog are not going to go out of their way to find homes for a dog found wandering on post if they think it could be a danger. Calling her adopted dog a terrier mix is telling the truth if those are the dominant features and no testing can be done.
Wisdom Panel DNA test for dogs. It works. I tested it on purebreds and on mixed breed rescues where I knew what they were mixed with for sure. So, there is definitely a way to tell.
Yes, there is a way to tell if you want to spend the money on it. I actually am waiting on the results of a Wisdom Panel DNA for my own dog right now, because he's such a puzzle and I'm super curious. But many people honestly don't care what breeds their mutt is.
Wow talk about online bullying. I don't understand how anyone who calls a dog "stupid" even needs to bother reading this post let alone write a reply as they obviously don't care about the topic. These are some of the most ignorant comments I've ever read on a blog. I hope none of you actually have pets. I don't get why you need to be so nasty and angry – there are better ways to voice your opinion without bashing someone. Anyway, thank you to the writer for shedding some light on a very important and sad topic – bias breed banning on military posts because of privatized housing.
I don't think this is a very good idea. You are right. It is about insurance. . Breeds are restricted because it causes insurance costs to rise. Who is responsible in the event of an injury? Housing? The owner? The owner of the animal? These are things that matter. Landlords and housing ban breeds to protect themselves not because they don't like your dog. I understand that not all dogs that are considered aggressive breeds are aggressive, but they make a blanket statement to keep things simple. I don't understand what makes this a sad topic. Owners of the houses are protecting themselves financially. The owner of a dog has choices. If they choose a breed that is banned they can live elswhere, or buy their own house and have whatever kind of dog they want and pay their own insurance costs.
Except even owning your home doesnt mean you can have whatever type of dog you want. There are HOAs with breed bans, even entire cities or counties with restrictions.
Then don't live in those places. NOBODY IS MAKING YOU.
Wow. My child was attacked on post by a “banned” breed dog, and had I not been close with a stick, things could have been awful. Dogs are not people. And you have lost all credibility in my eyes. People
Ike you twisting things around, cause damage and sometimes worse, and for all of us. We chose pets according to whether or not we could travel with them, and live on post with them. There are rules for a reason. It’s the military. You really shouldn’t encourage people to be devious.
I am so sorry that your child was attacked. As a mommy of two little boys, I can only imagine how horrifying that must be.
You can't condemn a single breed or "banned breeds" simply because your child was attacked. It is a terrible thing, and thank God you were close enough to intervene. That dog didn't attack because it was a banned breed, it attacked because it was a bad dog with a bad owner. I have had dogs of every shape and every size my entire life. We once had a collie mix who attack anyone that ran behind me or my sister. We knew it and we warned everyone, not to appear to be chasing us or attacking us in any way. The only thing my Pitt Bulls ever did was bodily force their way between me and anyone trying to give me a hug or kiss (that was a no-no in her book). The only dog I've ever been bitten by was a Beagle (it was when I was a kid and it was mostly my fault, but the owner was a fault as well). To arbitrarily bann a breed from living anywhere is wrong no matter if it is off base or on. Make the owners responsible for their pets and this would be a non-issue.
I was robbed by a black guy once. Does that make them all bad? Doubt it. None of the banned dogs on post are in the top 5 for reported bites per year. Yea, it sucks that your kid was bit. It really does. But that doesnt mean every banned dog is bad. My pit is the most loyal dog Ive owned. The only thing you gotta worry about from him is being licked to death.
I'm with Amy on this one. There are way to many breed rules and theyre not even universal. If you commit yo a dog then IMO you need to do everything you can to do right by it. If that means getting liberal with breed type than so be it. Any dog can attack not just bully breeds. All dogs deserve a chance and people shouldnt be punished simply because they made the choice to have a dog as a pet.
I agree -the most passive of breeds can become vicious under different circumstances-and it's still the responsibility of the owner. HOld people accountable, don't punish breeds.
If you can not afford to live off base perhaps you should reevaluate your finances, because financial stability is very important to military life. Perhaps you should not own pets, however much you love them, if you can not support your family financially. I have seen many families that truly and deeply love their pets and then can not afford emergency care, or in some cases the quarantine when their "family" pet bit another person or dog. Working in veterinary surgery and emergency I have seen this a lot. This woman went out and got a dog, that she knew could possible be a banned breed on base and chose to find a way to twist it to her advantage. It is still a lie. Perhaps they should not have gotten another dog as they could not make a responsible mature choice before they were even the owners.
Pets are considered a luxury item, most people don't realize that. That is the reason that their prescriptions are not tax free, the government considers them a LUXURY. You made the choice to have the dog you were making a life commitment which means you will have restrictions because of it.
I disagree w this post. I , as a mom of a little one, would be floored if my child was attacked on base by someone's dog that they snuck on base via a technicality. I could see a law suit happening- and the base as well as owner getting owned in court.
If one cannot live w/ in the bounds of the military then perhaps they should not live on base or perhaps they should look into a different career. There are rules for a reason and I am happy that the military recognizes that some breeds are known to harm children and adults alike and do what they can ( expecting others to be honest) to protect us and make our community safer.
No amount of muffins would deter me if I saw that someone was lying by omission and sneaking a breed that has been deemed dangerous on to base.
Base is not just for you- its a community w rules and expectations. One big expectation is honesty! Geeze…..
ARG Semper Fi. As we used to say when I was in the Marines, if you cant hack it pack it. You don't openly break the rules and then think you can get away with it. If the lady that wrote this article is a military wife her husband needs to have a talk with her for putting his carrier on the line.
LOL…you need to read federal laws if you think you can sue the base, their contractors or pretty much any "government entity". You'll get tossed out of the courts. The other thing she is saying is these are MIXED breeds…how do you know my Collie/Chow mix is dangerous. He is, in fact, an emotional therapy dog and high speed for him is getting up off the floor to wag his tail. He's had children punch him, pull out his fur, jump on him, ride him, poke him in the eyeball and he's never done anything outside of growl (and that was once when a child pulled out a fist full of butt fur). Why should he, as a mixed breed, be banned if we had to live on post? We choose not to live on post because there are too many people that let their bratty children run around unattended but if we ever moved overseas etc I would do everything to make sure my dogs live with me, they are my family and mean no less to me then your kid does to you.
How about when the rules change after you already owned the dog and raised it since it was a pup..and your 11 year old child sleeps with it every night. Ignorant. I have lived on base for years… got the dog when I lived on base… and now it is banned… And also, some don't have a choice but, are mandated to live on base… and they have to give up their pets? Your child could easily be attacked by one of the other dogs that aren't on the list. Maybe base isn't for me when there are ignorant people like you living there. BTW… more people have a problem controlling their children, than their pets… Maybe someday you will have to live outside of that "protected" environment and you can't pick who lives next door to you… who knows maybe my part pit will be next door. You can sell your house then.
That is why there are "grandfather" clauses…
I think this a good article. I raised chows, and other "mean" breed dogs, never had one every attack me or anyone I know. Had someone with one the "sweet" breed dogs nearly tear my kids face off…it's all about how the pup is raised. If you do not have papers saying exactly what the lineage is, then by all means put it as broad of a breed it's close to. There is no reason a family should have to give up a pet (furry family member) just because it happened to be labled as a certian breed. How about instead of jumping down the breed of the dog, the people who abuse the animials and let them run all over the place get into trouble instead of kicking a family with a suspected "banned" breed whose dog has never bit or growled at anyone out of housing.
To the lady whose kid was attacked. I'm sorry, however it's not the dog's fault other than actually inflicting the bite. The real fault lies on the irresponsible owner who did not manage their dog properly. Any dog can bite. If you research dog bite statistics, more kids are bitten by labs and goldens yearly, but you can't sensationalize that so the media doesn't report it. Who wants to read that a lab ripped open a kid's face? No, society has demonized these so called 'banned, dangerous' dogs to the point where it is insane!
Oh by the way, vets do not take classes in dog breed identification so if they are 'sure' your dog is composed of certain breeds question them. The truth may be that they have no idea and are going with the popular mixes!
To the author, thank you for writing an article that will hopefully help more people keep their family pets as opposed to surrendering them to a shelter or turning them loose. Military families have to give up so much, why their cherished family pet too?
BAC you need to learn more about dogs. There are some breeds that are just more aggressive then others and no amount of training can erase that from their DNA. Sure small dogs might bark or bite more often but would you rather be bitten by a shih tzu or a pit bull?
If that was the case, then why does EVERY professional expert in the dog behavior and medical community oppose breed bans and has scientifically shown that they do not decrease dog bites?
Y'know. a gun doesn't shoot anyone untill someone (owner/user) picks it up and pulls the trigger but, we are trying to ban certain types because they may cause harm/death. Strangely much of the population is on board with this but not banning certain breeds of dogs because people 'have the right" to own whatever dog they want? I agree hold the owner responsible in both cases but banning something because it has the potential to do harm is ridiculous. Perhaps we need to do backround checks, safety classes and require registration and permits for pet ownership…..just sayin'
We have a German Shepherd, which I think is another breed that has been banned from on-base housing. So, we cannot live in housing because of our German Shepherd.
We have a German shepherd as well and we have never been banned from on base housing. They are not a banned breed. They have a standardized list for all breed bans that span across all branches and bases. They are: Pit bull (also known as American Staffordshire Bull Terrier or English Staffordshire Bull Terrier), Rottweiler, Doberman Pinscher, Chow, Presa Canario, Cane Corso, Neapolitan Mastiff, Wolf and Wolf hybrids.
At Malmstrom AFB, these are the banned breeds; Pit Bulls (including American Staffordshire Terriers and English Staffordshire Bull Terriers), Rottweilers, Chow Chows, Doberman Pinschers, Siberian Huskies, Akitas, Perro de Presa Canario, and wolf hybrids.
I always love the "my dog would never hurt anything" argument. My sisters dog was just that way. He'd never hurt anything except maybe a feisty squirrel who decided to run into the yard… that was until he ripped half of my niece's bottom lip off, left puncture wounds on her neck, tore off a big chunk out of her arm for trying to defend her 8 year old self. Oh and what was she doing? Playing with her Barbies in the yard. He never was aggressive before the attack. and my sister is a groomer and trainer. What breed was he? Doberman/Lab. Sometimes the most loyal of dogs DO attack without provocation.
There are MIX breed bans as well. Trying to get around strict rules just because you made a choice to take in a known aggressive breed is a bad one.They can question the breed of dog because you are living on THEIR property. You have the choice to live on post, or off. Though it's not just on-post housing that restricts pure/mix bully breeds. The do it as well in the civilian world as well.
But tell people that a pitbull/lab mix is more lab than a pit. Just disregard the other half of it's breed, no biggie!
I chose not to get another Pitt Bull after my last one died. She was the best dog I have EVER owned, and I've had dogs since I was born (43 years). I did this because of the base rules and the general issues with renting a place to live. We got her in Las Vegas and broke the rules in our apartment when we got her, because she was well below the size limit. When we moved on base it was a non-issue, our neighbor had a Rottie. When we left Vegas, we bought a home and our homeowner's insurance was cancelled when they asked us what breed our dog was, we said American Staffordshire (at the time this breed was little known). We went with a company that didn't even ask what breed of dog we had or even if we had one. When she died, it broke my heart and the heart's of all my neighbors as well. She was an awesome dog. But I made the decision not to have to deal with the issues of having to defend my choice of pet and knew I would not buy another home until after my husband retired. Once that happens and we own our own home, you can bet I will be looking for another perfect Pitt Bull pet, she probably will never be as great as my last one, but I know the breed well (I've had several) and I would not want any other breed, if I was looking at purebred. I had a lab before she died, who was a hunting dog, who was much more temperamental than my Pitt Bull ever was. Now I have a little terrier, who is a handful, and he likes to play chase and he bites when he plays. I would keep him away from little kids, because I KNOW my own dog and know that wouldn't be a good idea and I'm responsible for my furbabies behavior. I didn't stop certain playtime behaviors when he was little and he grew up to be a little more aggresive than he should be, I could resolve a lot with more training, but it is my responsibility no matter how anyone looks at it.
I think most of you are missing a huge point in this article – She's talking about mixed breed dogs that DO NOT have a DNA test to prove what they are. They are an unknown mix, but these can be labeled as a banned breed based entirely on looks. Just because she thinks her dog might have some chow in it, doesn't mean it actually does. She's not saying to lie to housing, or your neighbors, but if you have to guess at your dog's breed, keep it general and don't try to get all specific.
The shelter we got our pup from had a dog that they guessed was a pit bull mix. They did a DNA test on her and found out she was a boxer/beagle mix. But based simply on her looks, many people would call her a pit bull and she would be banned from living certain places.
I DO NOT agree with breed bans. The most aggressive dogs I've met were all little guys. Only dog that ever bit me was a miniature sheltie, and I was one of the people she liked. It should be based on the dog's behavior and the owner's responsibility. Of course, that means enforcing the rules, and I haven't seen that happening in my military community.
agreed; I was bit as a small child by a poodle, according to my parents. right in the face. Banning breeds will not stop dog aggression as a species. Education will help people and their children know how to behave around animals and what things can be triggers. Poodles aren't even a banned breed!
I've been bitten by 2 different black labs and a golden retriever…you know those "good family dogs"…the golden took a fist size chunk out of my calf when I was 12….In the dog park here the nastiest of dogs are usually the labs…my chow mix now doesn't even interact with them, he's been attacked too many times (and his main defense is to lie down which doesn't help his case).
Some of you people are acting like these band breeds are monsters. Should certain humans be band from things, because they are a lot of EVIL humans out there. Oh and the last time I checked small dogs attack more than big dogs.
"Certain humans" are "banned from things". Examples: Sex offenders, Convicted Felons
I was bit as a small child (2 or 3) by a poodle, according to my parents. right in the face. Banning breeds will not stop dog aggression as a species. Education will help people and their children know how to behave around animals and what things can be triggers. Poodles aren't even a banned breed!
I am really not picking on specific breeds or owners. I have no opinion on dogs or what breed they own. I am only commenting on insurance companies and how the rules are made by them. You can blame it on the actuaries. Insurance companies have to balance their risk with whom they insure. Cash coming in versus cash going out. The actuaries determine the risk involved. It is the same with life insurance. If you want to jump out of airplanes recreationally, your life insurance isn't going to be as cheap as mine. Again, they aren't banning breeds to pick on anyone. They ban the breeds because it is financially prudent for them to do so.
Ok, but then would discriminate against a certain race or religion if we found that this particular population causes more damage? What makes it ok to discriminate against certain types of dog owners? When will we fix the root cause and promote responsible pet communities? That's what I'd like to see.
Now you are just being silly. You are comparing banning certain dogs to people? Suprised you didnt throw a Hitler referance in there for good measure. You are comparing apples to hammers.
No, I am comparing responsible pet owners of Pit Bulls as compared to responsible owners of other breeds. When the science tells us that banning breeds does NOT reduce bites, then logically we should not be using this as the basis for any kind of policy be that in military housing or in cities/countries. The facts on this speak for themselves, and I encourage you to educate yourself on the subject.
The differance is, you were bit by a poodle. Im guessing you still have a face left, now change that same situation with a pit, or another large aggressive dog and come back with your story. It gets pretty old when I hear the same line, "Its the owners, not the dog." BS, some dogs by breed are just naturally more aggressive, no matter how much you love them. I was a pit owner for 14 years, any time that I had kids over visiting my children I put him up. Why? Because there is that chance that he would bite one of those kids, that I was not willing to take. Anyone that doesnt see this are deluding themselves. Dogs are not people, while totally awesome for the most part, their decision making process is not like ours.
You are promoting people to be (and have now bragged about personally being) purposely deceptive. You can play the word game saying "assumptions" and "it can't be proven", but really that doesn't matter. You know what you're doing. It's not about your principals and doggie rights, it's about the fact that you are lying by ommision and encouraging others to do the same. I'm sure your dog is sweet and precious. I've met plenty of dogs that would be considered an "aggressive breed" that are just amazing animals. It's not about that, it's about a set of rules put in place that you have deceived your way around and that is just plain wrong. Your justifications don't matter.
Someone, somewhere, decided people need to be protected from irresponsible dog owners and the dogs take the fall. My son was attacked when he was very little, by a pomeranian, but those are allowed on post. The rules need to be changed, but until they are, this article was just suggesting ways to get around them. Its up to you whether or not to take the risk.
And its not lying if you dont know for sure what kind of dog you have. We currently have a mutt. No one can even guess what he is. Looks like a very fuzzy pit with a mohawk, or maybe a giant Jack Russel with a big head. Who knows? The shelter listed him as a terrier mix as well. There are many other dogs at the shelter who are wonderful and loving but because they "look" a certain way they may never find a home.
Its not about the breed. Its about lack of training, socializing, and not spaying/neutering. These are bigger risk factors in attacks than what your dog looks like. I am a huge advocate for temperment screenings and renters insurance for "aggressive breeds" on military installations. That would relieve housing companies of liability and give good dogs a chance.
I was bit twice as a teenager and did nothing to provoke either bite. If you are going to lie and sneak about your dog what else with you lie about. Perhaps the real answer should be to ban all dogs from government housing.
One of our friends have chows and Chloe is definitely not a chow.
Oh I know she's not pure Chow :-). But she has Chow moments. You're just going to have to take my word on it. That picture doesn't do her Chowy-ness justice :-). Most of the time I think she looks like the dog in "Annie," … so I wanted to name her Sandy. Unfortunately, my sister-in-law is named Sandy, so ….
First, I don't agree with breed bans. HOWEVER, I disagree with being, let's say creative…with your dogs paperwork. You do, it works, you bring Fido into your on post home all is gravy. THEN YOU PCS, the next duty station doesn't see things the same way and low and behold…now Fido is living at the pound, hopefully Fido is adopted….but far too often Fido is murdered at the shelther with a lethal injection. I read alot in these posts about how humans feel toward dogs. I have dogs, I get it. What I didn't read alot of was dogs are living, breathing creatures. They are not toys. There is no wonder that next to every duty station we have been assigned the number one dog in shelters: pit bulls. Oh Fido can't get in quarters here? OH well, tough luck Fido. Another thing I will point out with pitbulls in particular…we have a pit mix and so have lived off post ever since…they have a locking jaw. YOU can write whatever you want on their paperwork, or have another vet do it….the next vet…the very first thing they will do is feel their jaw joint and say "nope this is a pit bull".
Please research dog behavior. You will learn that the locking jaw has been debunked by science and that there is no credible expert who believes that breed bans work or any particular breed is dangerous. It's really, really sad that there's still people out there that haven't realized that it all goes back to the owner and the way that dog is trained and cared for. The National Canine Research Council has multiple peer-reviewed studies if your interested in learning the facts on this.
I know probably much more about dog behavior than most people here. I train and teach others to train herd dogs. Now, while I will give you that no dog techinically has a "locking jaw" as is the common vernacular…pitbulls bite with more force, tenacity, a shaking head side to side motion and they simply DO NOT let go. This is why your beloved Pit BUll Rescue Central suggest people carry a "break stick", its also why they tell people not to use it on other dogs because low and behold they do not clinch bite, and if you go trying to wedge a stick into their bite you are more likely to injure yourself because the dog is going to come right off and onto you. Whereas a pitbull, needs to be pried off with a stick being placed in their mouths at the mandibular joint and pried off. I deal in herd dogs, they do what they do largely on their own…you know why? It was BRED into them. Pitbulls were bred to hunt and fight. They do both very well. You can't just socialize away breed traits.
Shepards and Rottweilers have been proven to have more bite strength than pit bulls. Pits do not, Nor have they ever had a locking jaw. NO veterinarian ANYWHERE ON THIS PLANET would be able to tell if a dog is a pit mix by "feeling his jaw". Why don't you people get over these stupid myths and read some facts, Some hard up Scientific facts. I train Therapy dogs, Most especially pits and They excel at it, Because what has been bred into them is an intense desire to please their owner with their actions. Not some craziness that will make them attack for no reason. A responsible owner will not EVER say "Oh well, tough luck Fido" A responsible owner who truly cares for their animal will do WHATEVER it takes to be CERTAIN that their animal is taken care of. If that means having to find a family member to take care of them or paying to have a rescue take them and find them a good home because of some bureaucratic bullshit laws, Then that is what they will do. The people who just drop their pets off to die at a "Shelter" are irresponsible pieces of crap who never should have owned an animal to begin with.
This post was created for families like mine who have mixed breed animals with absolutely no clue of what mix they truly are, But could possibly, if you look at them in just the right light, be a banned breed. That doesn't mean that they are a banned breed, It means they they are mutts. I owned a papered purebred yellow lab pup who had purple spots in her mouth and on her tongue. Purple spots do not make it a chow, Nor does being fuzzy.
My first dog was a "pit mix" in that he has 1/4 or less pit in him, But because he is brindle, He is called a pit bull and people are scared of him because if how he looks. But he is literally a Heinz 57. He has more breeds in him than I can name. But he is brindle, And that makes him a Pit Bull in everybody's eyes. We lived on post before the breed ban was enacted and faced all of the problems that their breed restrictions caused before the ban. We even paid the extra money for the 500k renters insurance, Because he is my baby, I have had him since the day he was born, And I will NEVER give him up no matter what it takes. Now because of some arbitrary titling I have to live out 40 minutes away from post so that we can live without having to abandon our beloved pet. You think this should happen and I say that this is just as bad as racial profiling. It is absolutely ridiculous and I commend the poster of this article for having the nerve to write this and the ability to help others in her situation.
I always get a kick out of the "what they don't know, won't hurt them" mentality. When we lived in base housing I always had 2 cats. Frequently I would come across a cat needing a home and would want to take him in, but base housing rules were 2 pets only. I had plenty of people tell me to just hide one cat when maintenance came in and no one would know if I had 3 cats. I couldn't live with the thought of the added anxiety of possibly getting caught and being given the choice of getting rid of a cat I grew to love or losing the housing that my family lived in. I chose to follow the rules and only had 2 cats. Now I have 3, but I live off base. Rules are there for a reason. We may not always agree with them, but there it is. If you don't want to follow the rules, live off base. I have a problem with doing something that I know may be dishonest and I feel a lot better about myself when I don't put myself in questionable situations. I consider deception to be dishonest and if you aren't sure that the dog you have chosen meets the rules on base, then either don't get the dog or move off base and get the dog.
I cant tell you how many times Ive called the SP's because of loose dogs running around, my wife and children have both been chased by dogs in base housing and my mom was cornered by a snarling mut until I ran it off with a shovel. People want to have dogs fine, but be prepared to be financially and possibly criminally liable for youre propery (dogs are property) just as you would be if you ran someone over with a car. Is fluffy worth a lawsuit? or the embarrasment of being kicked out of base housing?
My pit bull, son, and husband and I were chased a couple times in my neighborhood by a German Shepard!
Sad for anyone who has been bitten by a dog.. But please no need for every dog to be judged by a few BAD!!!! OWNERS!!! We have a Rottweiler yes he is a restricted breed!! (Not banned). My husband gave him to me to help with my Fibromyalgia,, as we ALL know and are familiar with deployments he is gone a lot, we have yet to live on a base, but we are currently on the list. We are aware of the rules and will adhere too them as we all should… But he is a therapy dog not only for me, but also for my husband. It saddens me to be discriminated because of a few irresponsible owners!! Do all Bad kids come from Bad Parenting? My Rottweiler as well as my three children have manners, respect, and are well behaved. I always get complements on all four of my babies lol
You do realize that just because our military sacrifices a lot doesn't mean that they are exempt from any rules. Whether I agree or not, there are rules about which breeds are not allowed in housing. You have the option or freedom, however you want to say it, to make the choices about which type of dog you want, whether you want to follow rules covering the housing you would like to live in, or living off base. Using the "military's sacrifices" for getting to do what YOU want to do is getting old. And before you jump all over my ass for not putting the military in god-like status, I have been a military wife for about 24 years and I understand that my husband and I, as members of society, must follow the same rules that everyone else must follow.
Why aren't we kicking people off post and why are there no rules when the bratty children bite, kick, vandalize or get violent. My neighbors kid has bitten me…twice….and I've been kicked by kids in the commissary on numerous occasions. Bad parenting results in bad kids like bad dog ownership results in bad dogs, why is only one punishable?
Since this topic obviously has brought out ugliness in some people, as many people tend to get when they are not agreed with. Those who are bashing Mrs. Bushatz on this article, reread it and take it for what it is, not what you want it to be. She is not telling you how to "sneak in banned breeds", she is discussing those mixes that just can't be categorized. Like her own dog, who knows how far back the chow breed is, very easily could be up to 5 generations and still show some physical traits. Therefore not a dog that should be banned from any military housing. Personally, I think the breeds on their list needs some serious updating. Many of the breeds on these lists are not even a second thought to a homeowners insurance, and it isn't keeping anyone or any other animal safe. As more then 90% of dog bites are done by dogs that are not on these banned breed lists, and Im not talking about the little bites you go home and put a band aid on or have to look in bright light to find the teeth marks. We can argue bad breed or bad owners all day and never come to a truth, though I do have my opinion on a certain breed with facts. So I just won't go near that breed or allow my children to. That is my personal opinion that I am entitled too, as I have seen to much damage and destruction by this breed, which out weighs the good stories. Those people who have kids, be a parent and teach your kids how to treat an animal, not just for the animal, but most importanly the childs safety. I'm not saying a child who mistreats a dog has it coming because ultimately children, as all people are more important then a furry family member. It seriously has to do with respect which ultimately branches out to other areas of life.
and exactly why is a mis behaved child or vicious teenager or a nasty adult any better then a "furry family member"?….literally I'm interested to know why, besides a genetic difference…what ACTUAL reason do you, or anyone on this forum have for claiming that? Simply because they have the same genes as you? Simply because evolutionary brain development gave homo sapien sapien a minor evolutionary leg up on neaderthalensis, do you feel superior? Please DO realize that genetics and anthropology both support the fact that the domestication of canines started around the settlement of humans since the canines could protect our ancient ancestors from predators, enemies and the elements…besides biological drive to procreate what makes you think humans/children are any better then a "furry family member"
No wonder you signed in as guest! I cant believe that I am even going to engage in such a ridiculous conversation, but here I am. First off I never ventured out into those hateful people or psychopaths that "like to hurt animals" I was addressing (which I think is obvious) the parents of children that have not taught them how to treat animals. Those that pull on a dogs coat/ears, poke at eyes or try to ride them, etc. things that kids will do when not taught how to properly treat an animal. Which is cruel to animals though NOT done with malice or with the intent to be cruel. I'm not going to go into those that get a thrill out of being hateful as that is a whole other topic. That genetic difference you talk about is actually a big genetic difference, and your not exactly bringing in all the facts of what is known about human domestication along with canine domestication. Do more reading then Wikipedia.
How you can even question WHY human life is more important then an animals is truly disturbing in itself! I really hope you do not have children or live around others if you can't understand something so basic. If it has to be explained to you why a person is more important, then there is nothing I or anyone else can say that will make you see reality for what it is. You are an adult(although I hope not)and if you haven't figured it out by now you probably never will. Unless you are put into a terrible situation, since you have little to no regards towards the value of a persons life I hope this never happens, even if it is you on the receiving end. Many of us love and cherish our animals to the extent of them being a family member. I know I do, but I also realize that a person is of value not only to themselves, but to their loved ones as well. I'll say it again, it is deeply disturbing that you are even questioning the value of human life!
I do question why you think a human life is more important then any other living being…it's living, breathing, has feelings, has emotions. And actually I have done MUCH more reading then Wikipedia, I've got 4 degrees, 2 advanced, one of which is in Anthropology with a specific concentration on concentric settlement theories and human domestication. I've actually been to, and done work on, some of the very first sites of "humanistic" settlement in central and southern Africa. The thing I learned is that without animals, there would be no modern human. And if you think about it now that's still true considering the large number of omnivores our current population supports. Animals, such as canines, provided protection, food, hunting assistance and warmth.
You think human life is more important simply because you are a human but what scientifically, not emotionally, makes it more valuable? you seem to think it is based on a set of pre imposed morals . All you've given me is a laughable sense of moral outrage that someone can have a different opinion…you've given me NO reason what so ever as to why a human life should be more important then any other life on the planet since lets face it, unless we all turn vegetarian we rely on those lives for our very existence.
I do have children, they are raised to appreciate life in all forms, to realize that just because they are higher in the food chain doesn't make them more important then anything else.
Heck, go get dropped off in the middle of the jungle with just your current skills and I'm willing to bet you get a whole new appreciation on just how low on the food chain you are when you don't have your modern amenities to protect you.
And no, because most people think it, we are not vegetarians, however we don't eat processed meats, we both hunt (bow) for what we can get based on what is in season.
People are certainly misunderstanding the point of this article. This is not to say a purebred X dog is not a X, rather a mixed breed dog of XYZ is not necessarily X because of the way it looks. There is no way to determine a mixed breed's genetics. DNA testing and breed profiling is completely inaccurate with no scientific backing. This article is NOT advocating bringing ANY people-aggressive dog on base, rather to give those who have well-socialized, family friendly mixed breed dogs a solution to KEEP their family pets with them, while giving them to opportunity to live on base. Lest us not forget, not every family can AFFORD to live off base.
I does not matter that she is pointing out that her breed was a mixed breed dog, the title of the entire article will lead those to believe that it is ok to stretch the truth to bring their beloved family pets onto base. If you can not afford to live off base perhaps you should reevaluate your finances, because financial stability is very important to military life. Perhaps you should not own pets, however much you love them, if you can not support your family financially. I have seen many families that truly and deeply love their pets and then can not afford emergency care, or in some cases the quarantine when their "family" pet bit another person or dog.
Once you start blurring the lines of a lie who decides the how far to skew the truth? I have worked in the veterinary industry for many years and it'd not just about banning the breeds because of the danger to people but also the greater damage they can do to other pets.
My husband is in the JAG corp and I can without a doubt tell you that he would never approve of this, not only are you jeopardizing your ability to live in housing, the insurance that housing carries but also a black mark on the service members carrier for the conduct associated with seeing gray instead of black and white.
This is a horrible thing to promote.
We own a currently "banned breed" and because of this we live off-post. It's a frustrating truth and a hardship for many military families; not to mention it's a completely useless restriction. Bending the rules to suit your own needs punishes everyone involved, and will harm people who are honestly (and through the correct channels) pushing for a re-vamp of the current breed restrictions.
Responsible people don't lie, and pet owners that feel it's OK to do so – negatively impact us all.
This is the most irresponsible article I have ever read as both a military spouse in housing with pets and a former vet tech civilian army. There are rules in place for a reason, and although I have known many of the banned breeds that are in fact sweet and loving I have also had experiences with the ones that are not. I can not believe that spousebuzz and military.com would promote an article that encourages breaking the rules and the liability that could cause another person or a child harm….shame.
Why is it a completely useless restriction? I think it would be reasonable to state that there would have been more dog attacks and bites on post if the restrictions had not been in place. You might be able to debate how many attacks is has saved, but even if the number is small, you can't defend the statement that it was useless. We all make judgements on what pets to get and keep, so evidently you feel the value of owning the pet justifies the hardship of living off-post, but that's what this country is about, having the freedom to make those choices.
Recommend you do some research on how insurance companies classify breeds and then learn that breeds cannot be proven by DNA or through visual identification. Makes me wonder why we have policies that have not led to safer communities and completely ignored the root causes of dangerous dogs: irresponsible owners.
I would like to remind all military members as well that many overseas countries have "bully" breed bans, and it does not matter what is written on your paperwork. If you try to enter a country with a breed ban (Germany being one of them) and the person at the port suspects it is a banned breed despite the paperwork they will give you the option to euthanize the pet immediately or put it on a plane back to the US.
You may think it won't happen to you but working for the army vet program we actually had a client that tried and had to put the dog down.
Having a pet is a luxury (yes the federal gov't considers pets a luxury) and a responsibility, if you can not accept all of the limitations and financial burdens (living off base and paying higher renters insurance) then do not get a pet.
If you start choosing which rules should apply to you because you believe deceit is harmless why should anyone else follow rules they don't like.
Are you serious? You risk the servicemembers career, housing privileges and a potiental lawsuit just for a dog? If you want that dog live off post.
FYI I will also be forwarding this to Vet clinics and MP shacks.. This is a pathetic article
FYI, a Doberman Pinscher is part of the WORKING dog group, NOT the HOUND group.
Hey Patrick! I actually based that statement off of the book "The Encyclopedia of the Dog" where it is in the "Hound" chapter. Guess they are wrong!
How about just not having a banned breed? I got a call one day while filling in for the SgtMaj about a GySgt from my unit who had shot a Pit Bull in SNCO housing after it had gotten loose, attacked another SNCOs Lab and then attacked the Neighbors wife when they tried to get them apart and wouldn't let go. He put a 357 in the dogs chest so as to not endanger the Marines wife whose arm was in the dogs jaws. The Pit let go and laid down apparently done for. Then as her husband was helping her to their house for first aid and to call an ambulance, the dog got up again and went after them a second time. My Gunny put a second 357 in his brain as he was far enough from them for a clear shot.
*******
The victim survived after emergency surgery to reconnect torn muscles and plastic surgery twice later on. My Gunny was not charged as his weapon was registered at PMO and at Cherry Point NC where this took place regs allowed SNCOs and officers to keep private firearms in their quarters.
******
The owners of the Pit Bull acted as they all do with shock and surprise and questioning if their neighbors had done something to provoke the Pit and stories about how loving and gentle the dog was. Same O, same O for all Pit owners, blind to reality. They were kicked out of housing for allowing their dog to run free and attack another dog and two residents. They felt wronged of course, Pit owners never want to take responsibility.
******'
The bottom line is Pits and some other breeds are dangerous and will be for the foreseeable future. They have undergone centuries of breeding to create semi-domesticated fighters and that they will remain. They are not a domesticated animal, their instincts are stronger than their training and discipline on occasion. They are a time bomb, one never knows if they will or won't or when. So, instead of trying to defeat the regs intended to protect your fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines why not accept them and choose either housing or the dog. That's called responsibility and putting the safety of the families around you first.
Very sad the ignorance that exists on breeds. Please read Pit Bull Placebo and you will learn that for decades there has been an animal feared by the masses and used in abusive ways. Let's please target the root causes of dangerous dogs and hold the owners accountable for an individual dog's behavior, regardless of breed. If Pit Bulls were the problem, then why were Doberman's the dog that used to be banned but now permitted in Marine Corps housing. Please talk to vets and canine trainers and you'll learn that any big dog has the ability to cause harm when unsocialized and denied care. So sad the ignorance that exists on this issue.
I hope your spouse has more integrity than you. You have a problem with authority and don't fit in the military. I hated working with people like this. Everyone suffers when the crap hits the fan over stuff like this….one person being selfish and feeling so special they don't have to follow rules.
Don't play dumb about the rules. It's embarrassing.
I can understand the responses and having a furry friend who is family. I had to PCS to CA where "Quaker" Parrots are not allowed (there are a few states that are like this). There is no way I was going to give up Mickey so I did not advertise my bird around and kept her right next to me when I went to the pool. 3 1/2 years later we PCS'd to a Quaker firendly state. 1.) The reasoning behind banning Quakers is incorrect 2.) I kept a tight "leash" on my bird. If dog owners would do the same, there would not be such a problem. 3.) I never allowed even a chance for a mishap to happen. If a child came over, I would explain they could look, but not touch. Also, children need to be taught to NEVER touch a dog that is not theirs!
Let me add, I would never own an attack dog or one who had a bad rep. Of course if the majority of bases banned my Quaker then I would not have adopted Mickey in the first place or know I was always going to live off base and have a back up care plan when I deployed…which I did and used. Thank goodness I am now retired so I have more choices…but service before self when you're in!
Geez. Way to lead the spouses. Just follow the rules. Life is simpler for everyone involved except the lawyer the victim hires to sue you if your dog should ever bite anyone. Yes, the truth will come out when that happens. Don't expect the vet you had fudge the paperwork to stand up for you when it all goes down.
Like I tell my troops. The rules are there for a reason. Follow them or change them, but never disregard them unless you are willing to live with the consequences. Is it worth it?
The best thing to do is live off base until you can get the rules changed.
Think the larger issue here is how are we breaking a rule in the case of a mixed breed animal when that animal's lineage cannot be verified through visual appearance and or DNA testing. Neither method is scientifically accurate. This story simply says to avoid a banned breed label so you can NOT face housing discrimination. Makes a lot of sense to me!
Wisdom Panel DNA test for dogs. It works. I tested it on purebreds and on mixed breed rescues where I knew what they were mixed with for sure. So, there is definitely a way to tell.
If they can extend benefits to domestic partners they can let me pick my breed of dog! Its my benefit to live on base, I earned it.
Every benefit we receive has rules and guidelines that must be followed to continue receiving the benefit. Housing can kick you out if you choose not to follow their rules.
By golly, this is a non-issue. If the military wanted you to have a dog (or a cat) it would have been issued to you. Pet ownership isn't a right, so consider yourself lucky. Stay within the benevolent spirit of the limited privilege that has been granted you, or risk losing it altogether.
This is ridiculous and I cannot BELIEVE that military.com is allowing such postings about any topics whatsoever. I am so darn sick and TIRED of military members (of which I am one) complaining, "Oh, we are having trouble finding a place to live because we have this and this pet…" or "Oh, we have too many pets for this or this housing, so we'll be living on base." I don't want any bribery muffins, don't have a "muffin top" and watch my weight, and I am a military spouse of 18 years who was a military brat for my Dad's entire career in the military…and we were not "allowed" to have pets because of restrictions in government and off-base/post housing. Breaking the rules makes the rest of us suffer, teaches children and the younger generation a bad message, tears up base housing faster (with illegal pets or too many of them not reported), etc. Limit your spousebuzz to topics worth discussing, not how to break rules!
Wisdom Panel DNA test for dogs. It works. I tested it on purebreds and on mixed breed rescues where I knew what they were mixed with for sure. So, there is definitely a way to tell.
Personally, I do not agree with lying about anything. Even if it is a "little white lie". Lying is lying. It only leads to more lying. I do not agree with breed bans, but some breeds are definitely predisposed to aggression. Not usually the ones that get banned, ironically enough. XD
The Army vet community issued a letter calling into the science behind DNA testing. My understanding is that they are not considered a 100 reliable indicator of breed and since Pit Bull is not a breed but a type, I would seriously question relying on these tests.
Army vets aren't exactly geneticists. The main inaccuracy lies in the fact that more obscure breeds are not included. Amstaff is included in the test though. An APBT would come back as an Amstaff I picked Wisdom Panel because they had the largest breed database out of any available dog DNA test. I've heard someone claim that their bulldog mix came back as a pitbull from a DNA test. Not this test though. They wouldn't claim to be able to differentiate between a bulldog and an Amstaff if they didn't have specific genetic markers to look for. Definitely more accurate than a visual guess.
I'm trying to figure out why people are so upset that about this article when there are dangerous dogs living in base housing right now. No, I don't mean restricted breeds are living in base housing (though, yes, some are). I'm talking about the Golden Retriever who bites children, the Poodle who snarls at passerby, the Pomeranian who runs at large and charges people and dogs, and the Lab mix who attacks other dogs.
I lived in base housing for 3.5 years and walked and jogged, with and without dogs, for all of those years. I regularly encountered dogs running at large. By and large, they were usually people-friendly and therefor mostly people-safe. A lot of them were poorly socialized and poorly trained. A number of them were scared. I've been charged, lunged at, growled and snarled at, and bitten, too. My dogs have been attacked.
Why isn't anyone taking these dogs and these incidents seriously? Why doesn't anyone care that the Goldie in the cul-de-sac is a known fear biter allowed to run at large? Why is no one concerned about the fat Lab mix who bit my dog and runs at large? Why is the Pomeranian who picks fights allowed? What about the neighbor with three intact dogs, two of which are males that fight over the female, and have even fought with each other ON TOP OF A CHILD?
Time to toss out notions of breed restrictions and go after owners who fail to responsibly contain and maintain their dogs. Because right now, on every single military installation is a dog who is a ticking time bomb through no fault of their own. They've been let down. And it's just a matter of time before a perfect storm of events occurs that sets that dog up to be in a position where he or she feels the panicked need to bite (or worse).
Shame on everyone fussing over breeds and lineage when people are getting bitten by all breeds and sizes. Shame on everyone ignoring the victims of dog bites and dog attacks to fuss over restricted breeds. Take the blinders off and realize people are getting hurt due to irresponsibility and nothing is being done.
But if we can't prove a breed with any degree of scientific clarity and if labeling/banning breeds doesn't reduce dog bites, why impose the rules? When is housing going to show us the accurate statistics to prove the bans are effective in accomplishing their stated purpose of keeping people safe?
Please list your scientific numbers that can tie a dog's looks to a behavior and can accurately predict which breeds are more dangerous. The sad truth is that insurance companies like other self professed "experts" go off of visual identification and/or DNA tests that have already been thrown out in courts and not deemed reliable. This article opened my eyes to the insurance company's use of junk science when assessing dogs for dangerous behavior. It's a long read, but worth it to be better understand why and how insurance companies get away with it.
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus11conninsl…
If we know this policy cannot be enforced not demonstrate that it's kept people safe, then the policy must be abolished.
The point is not to break the rules. If you want to try and get the rules changed, great. In the meantime, while the rules are in place, they should be followed. People can gripe all they want, but until those rules are changed, we have to live with them.
I'm not sure you would believe the evidence even if it was presented to you. It's pure math. Insurance companies have to pay out for dog attacks, and all they have to do is keep track of the statistics. A dog lover can twist the statistics or study results based on their own perspective, but insurance companies can't because they'd go out of business. Here's a list of the top 10 agressive breeds
1. Pit Bull
Sorry, your just wrong. Do a little research . You're twisting the facts out of some kind of misplaced bias. It's pure math. Insurance companies have to pay out for dog attacks, and all they have to do is keep track of the statistics. Here are the facts:
"All dogs can be potentially dangerous, however some dogs are more dangerous than others. Various types of breeds can be considerably stronger and larger than a person of average size. Training, socialization and proper care can make a significant impact, however some dogs are by years of breeding more aggressive. After in depth research and analyzing the studies performed by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the CDC, and the Humane Society of the United States, we have compiled the top ten most dangerous dog breeds. "
1. Pit Bull
2. Rottweilers
3.German Shepards
4. Huskies
5. Alaskan Malamutes
6. Doberman Pinschers
7. Chow Chow
8. Presa Canario
9. Boxer
10. Dalmatian
Ok, where did you get that list and are they deemed the most dangerous based on what? Media reporting? Visual identification? In the Journal of Animal Behavior Science they recently did temperament testing on trained, well behaved, healthy purebreds. The answers were far different than the list you have here, which makes me think this is based on media reporting, which anyone can call a dog anything and make it so, or ignoring all the other factors that contribute to aggression such as lack of medical care, chaining, zero training, no socialization, and starvation.