breeding and raising count for a lot.

people have selectively bred dogs and cats and horses and such for quite a while. the selective breeding has sped up the process of evolution by natural selection such that there are distinctive differences for different breeds (shetland pony vs draught horse etc). breeding counts for a lot (some dogs are selectively bred from precisely because of their agression / success in dog fighting rings, for example). raising also counts for a lot (some people 'bait' their dogs by encouraging them to lock their jaws onto towels or dummys when they are puppies etc).

i don't agree with blacklisting a breed, however.

surely there is a kennel club association in the US...
and surely there are specific divisions for certain breeds...

it might be worth trying to get them involved (i'd imagine they would be involved already).

it is kinda like how some people say that labradors are prone to obesity. it isn't true. it is rather that the people who tend to own labradors are prone to seeing them as a friendly family dog (which they are) who don't require exercise (which is untrue though it is true that they will cope with that better than most breeds) and who have a tendency to overfeed and under exercise them.

similarly pit bulls or shepards or dobermans or rottweilers (etc) aren't prone to agression so much as the people who tend to own them have a tendency to like and encourage displays of agression from their dogs.

and that situation can be complicated by backyard breeders who make a deliberate choice to selectively breed from the most agressive specimins (which encourages the innate tendency).

interesting how the nature / nurture debate is coming up with respect to dogs... the breed / race analogy is kinda interesting to me too... not quite sure whether it is fully appropriate but it seems fairly good...

i would think that a more sensible strategy would be to:

1) require all dogs (above the age of 3 months) to be registered.
2) require all dogs (above the age of 6 months) to be neutered unless the owners are granted an exemption for breeding purposes / unless they are suitably fenced and the like so as to prevent their wandering etc.
3) offer rebates / discounts on registration for such things as fencing, obedience training certificates, good ownership record, good ownership tests etc.
4) distinguish between 'high risk' dogs bred by backyard breeders who have no idea what they are doing and who tend to selectively breed for undesirable traits and breeders who are breeding for desirable show / obedience / agility etc traits.

minefield no doubt...

but blacklisting a breed is unfair methinks.

i don't know how the dog registration system in the US goes but we have something similar to the above... i guess i was wondering whether that kind of a system would be fairer with respect to insurance too. such that people pay less for insurance on dogs that are neutered / spayed, obedience trained, obtained from breeders who are breeding for desirable (as in pro social) traits) who have fully fenced sections, who can sit a good ownership test to demonstrate competence in caring for them, etc etc. just a thought...