Travel with Pets - United bans pit bulls from flying

http://pss.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/animals/restrictions.aspx

United will not accept the following breeds of dogs once they have reached either 6 months of age or 20 pounds (9 kg) in weight (whichever comes first). This includes mixed breeds of these dogs. No exceptions to this embargo will be permitted.
Restricted breeds: Pit Bull Terriers
American Staffordshire Terriers
Presa Canario
Perro de Presa Canario
Dogo Argentino
Cane Corso
Fila Brasileiro
Tosa (or Tosa Ken)
Ca de Bou

http://www.morganhilltimes.com/lifestyles/columnists/pete_keesling/pet-news-across-the-world/article_d6a45449-defd-5e75-b801-564f5379c64e.html

I have mixed thoughts on this ban. On one hand, United is trying to keep their staff safe and protect themselves from lawsuits. On the other hand, not every dog of those breeds is dangerous. The best comparison I can come up with is these dogs are like loaded guns: in the hands of an experienced, trained owner, the dog will not represent a threat to the general public. In the hands of a fool or someone with criminal intent, these dogs are deadly weapons that can go off without warning.

I have mixed thoughts on this ban. On one hand, United is trying to keep their staff safe and protect themselves from lawsuits. On the other hand, not every dog of those breeds is dangerous. The best comparison I can come up with is these dogs are like loaded guns: in the hands of an experienced, trained owner, the dog will not represent a threat to the general public. In the hands of a fool or someone with criminal intent, these dogs are deadly weapons that can go off without warning.

I think that most "bully breed" dogs, in the hands of responsible owners, would not attack. If you read The Lost Dogs: Michael Vick's Dogs and Their Tale of Rescue and Redemption, it indicates that most of the dogs rescued, even after that horror, were scared, nervous, or timid, but not deadly weapons.

I think that most "bully breed" dogs, in the hands of responsible owners, would not attack. If you read The Lost Dogs: Michael Vick's Dogs and Their Tale of Rescue and Redemption, it indicates that most of the dogs rescued, even after that horror, were scared, nervous, or timid, but not deadly weapons.(bolding mine)

But the problem is the airline has no way to tell the difference between "responsible owners" and "dog fighting evil maniacs".

I did read a good part of that book, and I understand that the dogs are not inherently evil. Some of the people who own them, however, are a menace to society and have modeled the dogs in their own image.

How does the check-in desk staff tell the difference between "nice doggy" and "evil monster with huge teeth that will rip your throat open?" There have been too many news stories about the family pet that suddenly killed a child, or even an adult.

There's also the stupidity factor: some peoplethink they know everything about training a powerful dog yet fail to understand its basic instincts and how to discipline it. I know I couldn't handle one, so I wouldn't even try, but not everyone feels the same way.

It is discrimination and it is unfortunate that United adopted Continental's ignorant policy.

I am pretty sure the "dog fighting evil maniacs" are not shipping their loaded guns via United Airlines cargo...sheesh :rolleyes:

Dogs can independently attack even owners who haven't mishandled them. Guns cannot independently attack owners who haven't mishandled them.

Have any major airlines kept statistics of any sort about the type of dogs which have bitten their employees, contractors and/or customers?

Will COdbaUA change the rules in part if there is some media coverage about US military personnel stationed abroad being impacted by this rule change after having already transported the family dog from the US (or elsewhere) to overseas as part of deployment/assignment abroad?

Dogs can independently attack even owners who haven't mishandled them. Guns cannot independently attack owners who haven't mishandled them.

Have any major airlines kept statistics of any sort about the type of dogs which have bitten their employees, contractors and/or customers?

Will COdbaUA change the rules in part if there is some media coverage about US military personnel stationed abroad being impacted by this rule change after having already transported the family dog from the US (or elsewhere) to overseas as part of deployment/assignment abroad?
Any dog can bite at any time, especially scared dogs in new situations without owners nearby.

I would be interested in seeing bite statistics though. :)

Any dog can bite at any time, especially scared dogs in new situations without owners nearby.True, any dog can bite, but my neighbor's Pomeranian can't rip your throat open. Deserved or not, pit bulls as a breed have a bad reputation because some of them have killed people. Not every pit bull could or would do that, but just like security no longer allows me carry my Swiss Army knife on a plane because other people with knives have hijacked planes, airlines make general rules based on their assessment of risk and clearly some airline staff believe there is a significant risk in transporting certain dogs.

United has reversed its policy and lifted the ban on bully breeds.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-08/business/chi-united-lifts-ban-on-9-breeds-of-dog-20120508_1_pit-bull-terrier-american-staffordshire-terrier-breed-discrimination

It was a rather quick reversal, something like one month. United now requires the formerly banned breeds to be transported in reinforced kennels. Now that policy makes sense. Come to think of it, all dogs should be in reinforced kennels to avoid accidents where the dog gets loose either in the body of the plane or on the tarmac.

They can always hire them as flight crew.

They can always hire them as flight crew.

Marvelous! :D

United has reversed its policy and lifted the ban on bully breeds.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-08/business/chi-united-lifts-ban-on-9-breeds-of-dog-20120508_1_pit-bull-terrier-american-staffordshire-terrier-breed-discrimination

It was a rather quick reversal, something like one month. United now requires the formerly banned breeds to be transported in reinforced kennels. Now that policy makes sense. Come to think of it, all dogs should be in reinforced kennels to avoid accidents where the dog gets loose either in the body of the plane or on the tarmac.

Yes, a reinforced kennel would make sense for all dogs.

United bans pit bulls from flying

A change we think you'll like!