Brit: Why are Kurdish Kangal dogs illegal in the U.S?
I saw a Kurdish Kangal dog for the first time on the internet. I know that they are used to protect herds and they keep wolves, bears, etc away but they also are known to have a good temperment and to be gentile with children. So I was just wondering why they would be illegal in the U.S... Does it have anything to do with dog fighting?
Photo Credit: USDAgov/Flickr
Answers and Views:
Answer by Highflier
Kangals are great dogs, but are not especially good for living on less than a few acres (or more) of fenced property. Very protective and great around kids. They are a really pure breed of dogs that are wired to look off to the horizon for any reason to protect what is thiers, they are always on alert. Thats what they have been bred to do for hundreds of years.
Got to have a good fence.
They are extremely intelligent but, at the same time independent.
There are some bans in Europe, but none here.
We have a male that is a excellent dog, but he would be difficult to handle for someone who didn't have a solid background handling strong minded dogs, extremely large ones at that.
Answer by ♥Love♥
There are certain breeds that are illegal on a city and county level. I don't think ANY state as a whole has banned any breeds (although one, Ohio I believe?, is close with "pit bulls"). And NO dog is banned throughout the entire country. Federal Laws have better things to deal with then dog ownership.
Kurdish Kangals, from what I've read, can be pretty stranger aggressive dogs. Not recomended for the first time owners at all.
Answer by ♥Love Herds♥
They are not illegal in the US.
Here is the Kurdish Kangal breed club of America website http://www.kangaldogamerica.com/.
Answer by Tulip
Casn't find any information in the Kangal dog being illegal
Why would they have a Kangal Dog club in America and breeder referal listed, and being a breed club they are reptuable breeders. So in answer to your question they cannot be illegal
Must be another state your refering to or another breed with a similar sounding name
Current State of the Law Breed banned
Statutes and Ordinances
(1) Denver, Colorado has prohibited "any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the city any pit bull."28 The ordinance defines "pit bull" as "any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds."29
Photo Credit: kamilsaim©
(2) Waterford Charter Township, Michigan has prohibited any prospective "possession, maintenance, and harboring" of any "pit bull terriers," and justifies the prohibition by stating that "the township has further concluded that it is in the interest of public health, safety and welfare that the presence of pit bull terriers be limited in this community to only those existing licensed pit bull terrier dogs in order that the threat of this breed will eventually be removed from this community."30
(3) Des Moines, Iowa defines "vicious dog" to include the American Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the Pit Bull Terrier, and imposes stringent confinement, licensure, and control requirements (including provisions for animal seizure and disposal) upon any animals deemed "vicious" under the ordinance.31
(4) North Little Rock, Arkansas has restricted ownership of Rottweilers, Pit Bulls, or Bull Terriers or mixes thereof by implementing a breed-specific licensure fee of $ 500.00 – far more than license fees for other breeds.32
The general purpose of these laws is to either discourage, restrict, or prohibit certain breeds of dogs which are defined as "dangerous" within certain jurisdictions. Nearly all the laws, when implemented, included a "grandfather clause" which allowed current owners of the specified breeds to keep their dogs, but prohibited any prospective acquisitions or breeding. Because current owners were not stripped of their rights to keep their "banned breed" dogs, merely due to their breed identity, the enactment of the BSL did not amount to a taking of their property.
- Does the Kangal Dog have the strongest bite force?
- Which would win a Kangal or a pitbull in a dog fight?
- Kangal, Central Asian Ovcharka, or Caucasian Ovcharka?
At the state level, statutes rarely prohibit or restrict specific breeds. Instead, the statutes tend to focus more on the dogs' and owners' conduct, and on dangerous behavior regardless of breed. For example, Michigan's state statutes define a "dangerous animal" as:
[A] dog or other animal that bites or attacks a person, or a dog that bites or attacks and causes serious injury or death to another dog while the other dog is on the property or under the control of its owner. However, a dangerous animal does not include any of the following: (i) An animal that bites or attacks a person who is knowingly trespassing on the property of the animal's owner. (ii) An animal that bites or attacks a person who provokes or torments the animal. (iii) An animal that is responding in a manner that an ordinary and reasonable person would conclude was designed to protect a person if that person is engaged in a lawful activity or is the subject of an assault. (iv) Livestock 33.
Nowhere in the Michigan statute governing "dangerous animals" will the reader find specific breeds listed. The statute regulates dog behavior, rather than the identified breed of dog. In contrast, enforcement of BSL is not dependent on a dog's behavior; instead a specific dog can be deemed "dangerous" as a result of the breed an animal control officer believes it to be, even if the dog has displayed no vicious or aggressive tendencies.
Florida state law contains a similar section, which again does not specify particular breeds of dogs, but instead proscribes types of behavior by dogs which are subject to penalty. "Dangerous dogs" are defined, in part, as those which have "aggressively bitten, attacked, or endangered or has inflicted severe injury on a human being on public or private property," as well as those which have "when unprovoked, chased or approached a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack . . . ."35
Ohio, on the other hand, has specifically pointed to "pit bulls" as vicious dogs per se. In Section 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii), the Ohio Legislature has stated that a vicious dog includes one which "belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog. The ownership, keeping, or harboring of such a breed of dog shall be prima-facie evidence of the ownership, keeping, or harboring of a vicious dog." [Emphasis added.]36
Interestingly, two states have actually prohibited local governments from adopting ordinances that regulate dangerous dogs based solely on the breed of the dog."37
Read all the answers in the comments. What do you think?