Uncle Sam says Pits and Rotties we DON'T want you

This is outrageous!  Our soldier's risk life and limb for this country and now some idiots want to take away the family pet???  Bless you, Laurie, for helping these families with the CGC Fast Track classes.  Please keep us posted on how the classes are going and how many of these dogs are able to stay in their homes.

I don't believe that this is the Military enacting on a small scale what they believe should be a larger scale law. I also don't think they're thinking about well behaved family dogs. 

I wonder if the military feels that there is a certain sub-popuation of the military with certain attitudes that are getting these dogs, and that's why they've enacted this policy.

Think about that "bad pitbull owner", the one who thinks it's cool to have a mean and vicious dog. Now imagine that guy in the military. It's a fit, right?

Having said that, I'm very much against breed bans, generally. But I think I have an idea of what the military is thinking about, and I think using something like Canine Good Behavior is a great way to sort things out. However, I would like to see more reasonable time given. For instance, 30 days to enroll in a program, x days to make progress. That type of thing.

I'd just like to say that I come from a military family, so I don't mean any disrespect, but other people from military backgrounds will know what I'm talking about. Some guys just love that bad-ass attitude. They're probably great soldiers.

__________
doxienews.com

"...which is not an awful long time for a completely untrained dog."

What is someone doing with a completely untrained dog on a military base? I am completely with you on the breed-specific rule issue, but I wouldn't rent my property to a tenant with an untrained dog of ANY breed; I certainly don't expect the military to allow them in a controlled environment like military housing. 

A friend of mine used to volunteer at a shelter near a large military base. They got an awful lot of animals who were dropped there because the owners were being transferred long distances, out of country, etc. When those dogs are untrained as well, they're hard to adopt out, and probably headed for euthanasia. There is a question of responsibility here, and if a dog is poorly trained, I can't help but wonder about the owner's general attitude toward dog ownership and worry about the fate awaiting that pup when life changes - as it does frequently for those who serve in the military. 

Thank You for bringing this to the attention of everyone here. i wish when they wrote a law - they would just write 1 law..... not add "fillers" to it that none of them read until they pass it and someone else has to implement it. But, lets leave politics alone for the time being.

With that said - I wish all dog owners would have to get trained before they get a dog and then as soon as they get it. Yesterday, i went out to do a long run in preparation of a marathon.... I was about 7 miles into the run - when a dog ran behind me and grabbed my ankle ..... I fell and now have 14 stitches in my left foot and a dislocated elbow. (right elbow so my violin playing will be non-existent until it heals - I have to cancel performances now).  The dog was a rottweiler? Another neighbor ran out - and sprayed the dog with a hose to get him to release my ankle - but my ankle was already bleeding.  I wasn't doing anything to the dog - had my I-pod in my ears and was just running.... I didn't see the dog?

But, I know lot's of great dog owners of Rottweilers? So, i wouldn't say they are bad dogs - but the man who rescued me said he has seen this dog go after everything on the road.... . it is not trained. Bad dog owner. 

Hi Kody,

We were military for 8 years and lived in base housing for 3 of those years.  What I experienced was a representation of middle class, hard working American families everywhere else, mostly young families, young children, and a lot of dogs, the same breeds you'd see in any neighborhood in this country.  I'm sure there are more Labradors and Golden Retrievers living in military housing than any other breeds, just like everywhere else!  I think the Marine Corps is just buying into the same fear-based mentality as the insurance companies.  I don't think military families are any more or less responsible pet owners than civilian families.  Again, I think they represent the public at large.

Director of Training and Behavior Counseling Pup 'N Iron Host of Dog Sports and Performance Network on Pet Life Radio

When you use the phrase "military families" it kind of throws off the argument. I'm sure the number of aggressive dogs of any breed drops way off if you look at "family" dogs both inside and outside the military. But not every pit bull owner is a "family" and when it comes pit bulls there seem to be a fair number of non-family owners who don't own them in the name of family values.

The truth is, most people don't have control of their dogs, regardless of the breed. The dogs may be nice or ill-behaved, but the owners still don't have control. Look at how hard I work with Kody to get control, I'm a good owner, but it's hard work, because dachshunds, I would guess, have an even higher tendency toward "aggressive appearing" behaviors than pit bulls. That is, if you walk up to a house with a dachshund or a pit bull in the front yard, the dachshund will bark and be perceived as aggressive more often than the pit bull. Probably far more often.

But dachshunds don't actually hurt other creatures very often. Maybe it's only because of their size, because even in the worst case scenario a bite isn't often that bad. But pit bulls, when ill behaved, can actually do damage.

I do agree with you that the military has gone about this all wrong. But the statistics are true that when bad things happen and pit bulls are involved, the insurance companies will tell you, the bad things are worse and more expensive. Statistics are by nature generalizations, and we all hate those, however they are also true generalizations.

So I don't think it would be bad for the military to require people to "show their hands" and effectively prove that their pitbull is one of the good ones. I think it is in the best interest of the pit bull owning community to beat doubters to the punch. To be able to prove their dog is well behaved right off the bat. I think the same is true for dachshund owners.

I don't want the families who own good pit bulls to be heartbroken, or the dogs, which is why this is a bad policy if it punishes in that way. But I think there's a balance to be found. Just a little regulation would have some positive side effects. It would really bring attention to which training methods work and which don't since more people would need to start training. It would bring attention to the fact that pit bulls can be as gentle as any other breed. It would help humans create a better relationship with their dog.

I look at it like financial regulation. I don't want the government running wall street, but I want there to be minimal regulation for safety's sake because it only takes a few bad home loans and some weird financial instruments to crash everything. 

I think in this case pit bull owners should work with the military so that family dogs won't be hurt, but the military still gets to see that all these dogs are certified as well behaved.

__________
doxienews.com

Hi Kody, that's just it.  The people living in base housing are families.  It was the director of Family Housing who contacted me and alerted me to the new ban.  Unmarried Marines either live in barracks (where they aren't allowed to have dogs anyway) or live out in town in their own houses, apts. etc.  So, this rule is aimed directly at families, most who have young children.  That said, I agree with you that a good many people are not responsible and do not train and manage their dogs well, regardless of breed, however I don't feel identifying and penalizing people who have certain breeds will get us anywhere or will have any positive effect on the big picture.  At best, all this ban may do is dissuade people from getting those two breeds, but they could easily go out and get a different large/giant breed bred to be a guard dog such as a Presa, Cane Corso, Fila, Black Russian Terrier or Neopolitan Mastiff, etc. instead.  And those dogs will be okay?  So do we keep adding those dogs to the list too?  How long will the list become and where will it end? 

If insurance companies, housing authorities, the Army, the Marines, or whomever really wants to promote responsible dog ownership and safety, the requirement to earn a CGC or attend a responsible dog ownership/basic manners training class would extend to ALL dog owners, not just the few who own the condemned breeds.  But I think the powers that be would be too chicken to mandate something like that since it would affect so many more people.  It's a lot easier to pick on the minority rather than the majority.  And I think that's exactly what's happening here and in BSL in general. 

Director of Training and Behavior Counseling Pup 'N Iron Host of Dog Sports and Performance Network on Pet Life Radio

It's stupid to single out those 2 breeds. (Although I love wolf-hybrids I can see why they might not want those around. :P)  I mean if we're going to be dog-racists here, what about Akitas, or Ridgebacks or Dobies? Or for that matter Jack Russells because I've known a few that were quite vicious. Also, Minpins because everyone knows they ALWAYS bite and hey, cats bite too right? Come to think of it... I've been bit more by human children than I ever have by dogs.... seriously... kids bite.

I can understand banning LARGE BREEDS altogether (although I wouldn't like the idea) if it were a space issue, or implementing a mandatory canine citizen test to insure all dogs have good training if it's a 'loose dogs running rampant' issue but I've always felt breed bans were pretty stupid, and how can they demand that only those two breeds pass a good canine citizen test and not worry about all the other breeds harassing the rotties and pitties?

The time limit for the testing is really unfair although I suppose it makes sense - they are allowing for really well trained dogs that doesn’t CURRENTLY cause problems to stay, not giving everyone a warning that it's time to train their dog. If the dog doesn't make the test in time but does manage to pass it a couple of months down the road is it possible for them to have their dogs back? If that's the case an off base foster program could make a huge difference. Is the general public aware of this? (This is the first I've heard of it but I live in Canada)

I am fascinated by this topic, just because of what you said, Desiree.

"I mean if we're going to be dog-racists here, what about Akitas, or Ridgebacks or Dobies?"

I tend to think of this as the military looking at all of the "expensive" (damage or money) accidents on the bases. Of those accidents pit bulls and rottweilers are the two highest perpetrators, according to statistics. So rather than make everyone go through the pain of added regulation, let's limit it to those two breeds. It's not that it couldn't happen with other breeds, it just statistically does not. So the military is being more kind to the owners of the breeds that statistically aren't a problem, cost and accident wise.

I have a hard time going along with this, "It's not fair, the military is evil." line of thinking.

I think people are against regulation of dogs because we know they are more than "property", they have a personality and soul, and yet we also know that we are the ones who are responsible for them. Dogs don't "sin". We know dogs can sometimes be a problem, and we know certain breeds are more likely to be a problem. We know the same thing about cars, and we make some insurance decisions base on what we know, and we also make everyone get a license to drive a car.

But I don't think of a dog as a car even though a dog owner is just as responsible for a dog as they are for a car. Legally the human is an owner, not a parent or a partner.

If you want to be "fair", this is what needs to happen. Every dog owner will need to get a true dog license, involving behavior and handling ability tests, to own a dog. Compared to that, isn't what the military is doing a lot easier for most people? But the question here is, is it easier at the cost of being immoral?

Which of these options would you rather have the military do:

• nothing
• what they are currently doing, selecting certain high risk breeds (with some modifications so that good pit bulls will not lose their homes)
• require all dog owners to prove their dogs are safe and under control (definitely the most fair, no racial profiling involved)

Legally, for the military and many other organizations, I don't think "nothing" is an option anymore. So they have to do something.

I'm sure you guys can think of better options, so please respond with them.

__________

doxienews.com

But the question here is, is it easier at the cost of being immoral?

Kody,

I've always found that when the military comes under scrutiny for something that the general public finds 'unfair' or 'immoral' it's usually the single most practical solution to the problem, the military (as an organization) simply cares more for practicality and results then peoples mushy-do-gooder feelings which is why they are so effective. I admire this, and as I said in my post "it makes sense - they are allowing for really well trained dogs that don't CURRENTLY cause problems to stay, not giving everyone a warning that it's time to train their dog" It's an immediate solution that they've chosen specifically because it was the most effective option readily available. Isolate and remove the most problematic dogs, permanently. It will work in the short run. The thing is though that aside from pitty bites having more damage potential than most other breeds it has nothing to do with pitties and rotties but rather the people that buy ‘bully breeds’ as a status symbol (and occasionally but certainly not always abuse them)  OR irresponsible owners that don’t train their dogs (and occasionally but certainly not always abuse them). So, in the next two years each of those 2 bad dog owners types will do one of 3 things.

1. Not get another dog. Problem solved. (Maybe have kids instead, who knows!)
2. Get another dog of ANY breed not banned and not train it so it behaves the same way their rottie did.
3. Get another bully breed that’s not Rottie or Pittie as a replacement status symbol.

 All we can really do for the nice families out there with nice dogs that just happen to be the wrong race is hope that they’ve trained the dog well enough to pass the Good Canine test. An ideal solution (Continentally, not just in the military) would be for everyone whose dog is nabbed by the bylaw for some aggressive act to undergo a human ‘Good Citizen’ test, a little psych test designed to reveal any hidden leanings towards: Dominance behavior, extreme control, violence, assault, abuse, confrontational tendencies and power-hungry tyranny.

Actually, if they ran that test on the owner every time a dog was charged with undue aggression we’d probably close more cases on rape, assault, murder and abuse as all of those same tendencies have a tendency to resurface, and just like children our dogs are an excellent mirror of what goes on at home.  

That post was already long but I feel the need to follow it up a little more…

Kody, You are absolutely right that there does seem to be an "It's not fair, the military is evil." line of thinking floating around and it’s completely hypocritical. By passing this directive the military is simply putting in place a law that most of the general public would love to see enforced everywhere but doesn’t have the balls to go through with. The truth is, a huge majority of the population feels this way about these kinds of dogs and blaming the military for being cold and impersonal is a convenient way of alleviating our own responsibility and guilt. There is definitely an undercurrent of ‘dog-racism’ towards these bully breeds almost everywhere a person goes and it’s up to us as advocates of those breeds (and dogs in general) to get the message out there that it’s NOT THE DOG’S FAULT. Blaming the military for taking the publics lead in blaming the breed is really neither here nor there.

Hi Kody, I don't think anyone is saying the military is evil.  I think their admin is just following the status quo.  If we're honest, we're probably all breedists (that's the term I use as dogs aren't different "races") in one way or another, in that we prefer some breeds (or mixes of breeds) more than others.  There's nothing wrong with that, however I do think we are just fooling ourselves if we think banning certain breeds is going to lessen injuries, damages or even fatalities from dog attacks.  As far as statistics go, I have a hard time believing Pit Bulls and Rotties cause more injuries and damages than any other breeds.  For one, there are about 10 times more Labs in the world than Pits and Rotties combined, so statistically Labs would have to be at the top of the list.  The Pit Bull and Rottie attacks are the ones that make the headlines.  That said, we all know (or should know) that there are more factors than a dog's breed that help determine a dog's temperament and behavior such as environment before and after whelping, socialization, physical environment, training, etc.   Breed specific bans and legislation just blarringly demonstrates how much our society doesn't understand dogs.  If we did, rather than banning breeds of dogs, we would make dog owners more responsible and accountible.  So what should the U.S.M.C. and Army have done?  They should have led by example and  required ALL dogs living in base housing to obtain a CGC or equivalent.  They already require all dogs have certain immunizations and be microchipped, so why not take it just a step further?  This isn't about legalities.  You can't sue the military, so liability is not the issue here.  I believe deep down they do want a safer environment for the families and they mean well.  They're just going about it all wrong.

Director of Training and Behavior Counseling Pup 'N Iron Host of Dog Sports and Performance Network on Pet Life Radio

I beg to differ on those so called breed statistics that state Pit Bulls and Rottwilers are the two highest perpatrators. Statsitics can be manipulated by anybody to get the results that particular "person" wants. I think you will find the highest perpatrator is actually the Golder Retreiver but we don't see a outcry for them to be banned do we. Bred specific legilslation will not, does not and cannot work. All it will do is bring the next lot of favoured breeds to the top of the bite list.

It would be nice if they would have explained the reasoning behind the decision. Laurie, do you know if they did? Knowing the government, there was probably some bureaucratic study behind this, so I doubt it was just off the cuff. I don't know that for sure though.

I'm kind of giving the military the benefit of the doubt, but I don't actually know that they deserve it, so I'd love to see what references they used in making this decision.

Gillians, I would be interested to hear your answer to the question I posed in my last post. What do you think the military should do:

• nothing
• some sort of regulation like what they did, limited to high risk breeds, but with better time and opportunity for people to prove their dog is safe (breedism)
• some sort of regulation, but with all breeds (no breedism)
• something else (please elaborate)

Because I'm fine with you saying "this won't work" but I'm honestly interested in what you think will work, and would be fair.

__________
doxienews.com

As far as the Military's legislation, I think it should be across the board with no breedism (what a great word)............ but in general, as with driving a motor vehicle, I would like to see it manditory for dog owners (I would love it to be for ALL dog breeds but I recognise the limitations to this) of certain breeds that simply because of their size the potential for them to be a lethal weapon is enormous, a minimum of 12 months registered training, with log books that must be signed off on by accredited trainers that are licensed with a governement orgainisation, with a licence given for a period of time, and needing to be renewed.

I can already here the uproar over this, I had it myself when discussing with a plumber, after admiring my rottweiler, he wanted one. He told me, when he enquired with the then secretary of the local Rotty association, she advised she only would sell him a puppy if he signed an agreement to take his puppy to a minimum of 12 months dog training. He told me he thought that was a bit rough and he didn't have time to dedicate to that....of course my answer was he should seriously consider not having a dog at all and I thought the breeder was being very responsible in her attitude, pointing out to him my dog was only the way he was because I put a lot of time and effort in him to ensure he was, trying to instil in him the great responsibility it is to have a "powerful" breed of dog.

I do recognise this is going to be a really big step. As a rottweiler owner, I have always recognised the huge responsiblity that goes with owning one. I went to great pains to drum this into my partners head and his son, they thought I was being over zealous, but over time they have finally recognised what I mean. My dogs do not even have to do anything but we know they will get the blame if anything happens. Something minor, that people will accept as "understandable, cute, or acceptable" from other breeds of dogs will immediatly be labeled as dangerous and aggressive withn mine - and I now have two, which is not double trouble, it is quadruple trouble! (one of my Rotts is fabulous, the other one is a work in progress and I tell people please do not approach or let your dog approach until I am happy he has calmed down enough for a greeting)

I understand one of the States in the USA has a legislation that appears to have a three strikes rule (I think it is LA but I am not entirley sure, I was watching it on one if those Animal Cops shows). this seems fair, and from my understanding of what I have seen, a lot of the emphasis is placed on the owner taking responsiblity for the dogs actions. It does not seem to differentiate between breeds. It is fair for both non-dog people and dog people. from what I have seen of it, they do appear to have the balance right. the owners are directed to take certain steps (each case is taken on an individual basis) to ensure their animal does not cause any further problems. There is a court system type of precedure that is undertaken, with both the victims and the onwers and any other witnesses being allowed to have their say. Often dogs are put through temperament testing for further clarification. If the dogs are brought before the system again, the directives are stricter with the warning that euthanasia will be the next step if anything happens again. Obviously the victims are not always happy with the outcome because our human nature wants revenge and guarrantees a dog is not going to bite - we all know the only guarrantee is euthanasia - I am not really sure if victims are wanting revenge on the animal or the owner (I suspect it is both to be absolutly honest). In the above system the dog owner is under no illusion, the matter is extremely serious and the animals life is at stake.

My personal observation, often large dog owners, when out in public,  are very ignorant, uncaring and arrogant about other's genuine fear or dislike of animals or dogs.  the owners should be made responsible for their dogs and subsequent deeds. - with the ultimate price being the life of the dog (unfortunatly it is sad and I loathe it but the dog always pays the ultimate price for the irresponsibility of his owner) if the deed is excessive or often enough and it is obvious the owner is either unable or unprepared to take relevant action. Having said that in a clinical situation, we are aware of which dogs of any size will give us a problem because the owners are sacred of them and we can react accordingly, interestingly it is the owners of small breeds of dogs that are more concerned about us upsetting or hurting their dog whilst trying to restrain them for examination, than whether or not their dog bites us. Owners of larger breeds are happy for us to restrain their animal so we will not get bitten, they are comfortable we restrain properly with out hurting the dog. Little dog owners have this belief only they know how to handle their precious little bundles (BTW: I also have chihuahuas as well as rottweilers!).

I believe we need education progammes too, not just for dog owners, but also non dog people, about canine body language - dog people need to be aware that their dog is not necessarily "just being friendly" when it rushes up to either another dog or person. It is rude behaviour even given the dog is genuinally a friendly dog, it is not observing doggie ettique. Even if there are cute little commercials explaining in a fun friendly way, even from a dogs view point, about body language and ettique, eventually it should slip through the human phsyque. Unfortunatly with legislators, they tend to consider education techniques too  costly and time consuming and also does not create the headlines and controversy they want to draw attention to themselves.

I do know for a fact that in hospital dog bite records it is usually the most popular dogs of that time that are high on the list - Golden Retrievers are actually very high, in fact I beleive they may even head the list. but because GR are not the big black scarey looking dog and therefore do not make great headlines we do not hear of these incedences. Breed specific legislation will only move the next lot of popular dogs to the top of the list - it will not stop dog bites or attacks. A exceptionally good book to read on the topic of how dog bites and attacks have been publicised over the years is The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression.

Sorry I am very passionate about several subjects to do with animals and this is one of them - I tend to go off.

Gillian

Here's the thing guys, reagrding this rule for Army and Marine bases (and I bet Air Force and Navy soon to follow if not already) it's a done deal.  There will be no uproar and the rule won't be rescinded.  Once the military makes an order, that's pretty much it.  It has to be or else they'd be viewed as wishy washy, which means weakness.  And a strong military is imperative.  When one joins the military, he or she agrees to follow orders.  And military dependents must follow those same orders as well, or as Heidi Klum says, "they're out."  Period.  No recourse.  Civilians really have no idea of the rules and regulations military and their dependents (not my word, that's the official term of spouse/children) must follow, particularly when living on base.  There are fraternization rules regarding who you can and can't date or even be close friends with.  There are places where officers and their dependents can go but enlisted and their dependents cannot.  That's just the way it is.  You don't like it, don't join, or don't live on base.

So believe me, I am not blaming or criticizing the military in any way.  This isn't really about them.  It's about our society at large and the perceptions and misconceptions that are out there about dogs, in general.  The greatest impact we can make is to continue to educate the public and work hard to get dog owners to train, socialize and just be more responsible with their pets.  That's really what all this is about.  If people were more responsible, all these dangerous dog incidents, regardless of breed, would decrease considerably. 

Director of Training and Behavior Counseling Pup 'N Iron Host of Dog Sports and Performance Network on Pet Life Radio

Good Luck getting all owners and dogs to pass.  Bad dog owners come in all shapes and sizes and classes. The family who owns the dog that ate my foot and broke my elbow are executives that work in the city 12 hours a day. Their house is worth over 9 digits.... They never bothered to train/walk/exercise their dog who needs a lot of everything. Another neighbor who de-barked their dog and hasn't fixed their fence so their dog gets loose all the time - they are both ER drs..... who don't seem to have the time to do right by their dog. (Dude has been sitting on my front porch all morning) I find better dog owners going into smaller neighborhoods or towns where people live closer together and have to deal all day long with eachother.  

I hope you get all the dogs to pass the CGC .... Wish they had thought a little more about it before they passed anything.

Gillian, very well said.

Laurie, good luck helping those folks out. It is a raw deal.

senseiinspired, sometimes I feel I just have to close off my mind to the dog abuse that happens around me. There's a dog nearby who sometimes barks and howls all day while his owners are gone out of loneliness. He's stopped, and that worries me more than if he were still doing it because while they're basically good people, I don't know what method they used to make that happen. Although I did see them walking them yesterday for the first time, so maybe that's it.

__________

doxienews.com

gillians, I like the idea about making non dog owners more aware of dog body language and etiquette. Pedestrians have to know how to use a crosswalk regardless of whether or not they have a drivers license and dogs are probably almost as prevalent in our society as cars these days. If you think about it too, how many people do you know who would run full speed at a horse from behind and pull its tail? Not many, most people know if you run at a horse from behind your going to get kicked in the face, most people who know that have never owned a horse. Why do people charge up to dogs and stick their face in the dogs face? If the dog bites he gets put down, if the horse kicks the witnesses say 'Your an idiot, don't run up behind horses."

Kody & senseiinspired, I see stuff like that all the time too and it’s really hard to know what to do about it. Actually, maybe you can help me decide what to do about something? My neighbors have 3 kids between the ages of 5-10, last year they got a Jack Russell pup. The dog now bites people quite frequently (Including the kids) but she never does any lasting damage so she just gets scolded. Last week I saw the boy (I think he’s about 6) take the dog for a walk, (the dog was wearing a regular nylon collar) my dogs started barking at the fence so I went to see what was going on. He was dragging the Jack Russell back and forth past the fence to make my dogs bark, he then swung her off of her feet and helicoptered her around him in about 5 big circles with the leash. She is a pretty smart dog and she saw it coming so as soon as he pulled her off her feet she grabbed the leash in her mouth so as not to choke to death. As soon as her feet hit the ground she bit him on the leg and he said “_____, BAD DOG! DON’T BITE!” and took her home.

Fortunately for me my gate was locked so I am NOT facing charges of child abuse, however, I didn’t say anything to him – nothing (I was way too angry to think of anything ‘appropriate’ to say to a 6 year old boy anyway.) If you see an adult treating a dog badly you can reason with them, what do you say to get through to a ‘not so bright’ kid of 6? Do his parents already know he’s a little MONSTER? Do they care? Should I try and explain to the kid that abusing his dog is not a good way to make friends with it and run the risk of scary-angry parents banging my door down? Should I go over there and talk directly to his parents and probably get told to mind my own frickin’ business? Report them? (They would definitely know it was me and I’m sure they’d make it so impossible for me to live next to them that I’d have to move.)

Are there any pamphlets or anything you can get anywhere that show kids appropriate pet handling? (Like those cartoon ‘smoking is bad’ booklets)

I use the opportunity such as Desiree's example to work with the child and the dog they are controlling. Make it fun... bring out the clicker... and grab the rewards! If you can show a child that s/he is handling a good dog... you're going in the right direction.

"Hi there, can I show you how your dog does tricks?" Stand in front of their home (in open view) allowing potential conversations with the parents too. Make the dog a star and the people will follow!!

Sorry to go off topic. I'm just getting quotes for professional insurance and the breed restrictions are akin to these military rules.

Donna

I know people have mixed feelings about the AKC, but the organization does devote quite a lot of attention to public education.  They sponsor a Responsible Dog Owner day and encourage groups, clubs and individuals to sponsor local events.  Anyway they have some really wonderful handouts that they encourage people to download and distribute.  They will also send free RDO kits to any clubs and/or individuals that are holding events.  Some pretty cool stuff.  My club sponsored an event a few years ago and we held coloring contests for the kids, games, etc, all with a theme of responsible dog ownership, bite prevention, proper dog care/handling, etc.

Director of Training and Behavior Counseling Pup 'N Iron Host of Dog Sports and Performance Network on Pet Life Radio

Wow, thanks for that link Laurie, those activity books and stuff for kids are fantastic. Those are both great ways into public education. I'll be taking that link and a couple of samples down to my local vet clinic and SPCA to make sure they are aware of the resource. Teaching the dog tricks is a great idea, next time I see them out on the leash I'll give it a go. I think children are a good place to start with public education for 2 big reasons. They are more at risk and they are more open minded. Nothing makes an impression like

"hey dad? When I call Fufu she comes and sits but when you call her she doesn't listen. Maybe you should give her this treat when she comes?" *child pulls lint encrusted chunk of leftover hot dog from his pocket and confidently deposits sticky mess into fathers hand*

"Uuuh, where'd you see that son?"

"The neighbor's dog does it all the time when she calls"

"The Pit-Bull?"

"yep"