I'd rather talk to dogs than their owners so I guess I'm not very socialised neither. In fact when me and my partner walks our dog and end up in a conversation with another dog owner I leave the human to her and I talk to the others dog. I understand the dog better, she gets human small talk better. Apparently I say inappropriate things! Not to me it isn't.
Banned dogs - thoughts
- Thread starter Scottieoutdoors
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
To be more accurate - Laws don't breed corruption.
Laws breed or at least define a legal structure.
Even if no-one of authority was corruptible it would still create a underground black market.
Small breeds are the way forward all breeders should be monitored all bigger breeds are illegal anything bigger than a terrier should be turned into compost .
My neighbour had the softest Irish wolf hound that you ever met.
What you doing under that bridge, get out before the big billygoat gruff comes along.
Actually, yes!
I read a really interesting essay about it, comparing previous 'dangerous dogs' news cycles to other 'moral panics'. Apparently the dangerous dog panic comes around every decade or so, and plays the same role in public discourse as fears of satanists and the like. I wish I'd kept the link.
The number of dog bites stayed the same after the Dangerous Dogs Act in the 90s, but the amount of coverage went down a lot, giving the perception that there had been a 'dangerous dog situation' which was now over.
It's definitely a decision by the media to create news cycles about a cultural boogeyman - for what reason, I couldn't say. It was really interesting.
Every time there is an issue with a breed of dog being weaponised it is a case of breeding. It is a proven scientific fact that canines can be bred for docility or viciousness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Trut
When idiots start breeding dogs as weapons it only takes a few generations for aggression to become a dominant characteristic, to then create a great many problem dogs with the problem spreading at a geometric rate because there is fast money to be made.
It doesn’t necessarily follow that an abused dog becomes vicious, I have personally been involved in the rescue of a great many abused dogs and I can honestly say that the majority turn out to be the sweetest natured animals that you could imagine.
When idiots start breeding dogs as weapons it only takes a few generations for aggression to become a dominant characteristic, to then create a great many problem dogs with the problem spreading at a geometric rate because there is fast money to be made.
It doesn’t necessarily follow that an abused dog becomes vicious, I have personally been involved in the rescue of a great many abused dogs and I can honestly say that the majority turn out to be the sweetest natured animals that you could imagine.
An English Bull Terrier can easily reach 38 kilos, just to point out a flaw in your logic…that is heavier than the vast majority of dogs in the UK. My deerhound is only 48 kilos and he’s probably the softest dog on the face of the planet, size isn’t really the best criteria for judging a dog’s capacity for aggression.
Edit, just to clarify, I’m not suggesting EBTs are aggressive, my sister has them and all her dogs have been softer than a wet cow pat.
Last edited:
This thread is rather shocking. Mention Golden Retriever, Wolf Hound, Deer Hounds etc, and no photos?
I would need to upgrade to post photos of my dogs here…you’ll just have to use your imagination, he’s beautiful.
Probably best posted in a nicer thread anyway.
I have worked in kennels and am an avid dog lover. I have worked for animal rescue and fostered many dogs over the last 40+ years.
Many breeds have been in my care, samoyed, ridgeback, alsation, labrador, spaniel for instance, and many breeds of terrier.
The only dogs I've been bitten by were terriers, so I'm afraid the big dogs are the only dangerous dogs,theory realy doesn't hold up very well.
Admitted, being attacked by a big dog is scarier than a small one, any dog attack is not good.
Its about the traits bred into the animal, and how its brought up and trained. Not its size.
My stepdaughter has a bulldog. (called Winston) He's a big strong boy, but as soft as butter, and stupidly affectionate as you could imagine.
You need to read dogs, and understand their body language. I can approach most dogs and know much about their character by how they look at me, and what their body language says. That tells me how to approach them,... or not.
Many breeds have been in my care, samoyed, ridgeback, alsation, labrador, spaniel for instance, and many breeds of terrier.
The only dogs I've been bitten by were terriers, so I'm afraid the big dogs are the only dangerous dogs,theory realy doesn't hold up very well.
Admitted, being attacked by a big dog is scarier than a small one, any dog attack is not good.
Its about the traits bred into the animal, and how its brought up and trained. Not its size.
My stepdaughter has a bulldog. (called Winston) He's a big strong boy, but as soft as butter, and stupidly affectionate as you could imagine.
You need to read dogs, and understand their body language. I can approach most dogs and know much about their character by how they look at me, and what their body language says. That tells me how to approach them,... or not.
No, but it is still a valid metric for risk assessment. A toy breed, no matter how aggressive is unlikely to cause life changing injuries if it does attack.
This thread illustrates what an emotive and complex issue this is and the nature of the beast (literally in this case) means that unlike other potentially dangerous "things" we cannot easily apply the provisos of having good cause or reason to "possess" a dog in a public place, they are necessarily part of the community. The fact isn't lost on people who own dogs for purposes of what we might euphemistically call "protection" and those people definitely exist. So generally a question of the owner rather than the animal (there are probably exceptions). What we need to decide then is whether "dog violence" exists at a level that needs to be legislated on, and if so, how do we decide on who can own A,N. Other animal.
Yippee, more legislation, just what we all need…I’m actually getting pretty sick of an uninformed majority deciding what I can and can’t do “for my own good”
The general public, a few lobbyists and some concerned organisations get asked a few leading questions and the government then acts on its “consultation” no matter how ill founded or un just the idea. There has been a lot of this lately...let’s not add to it.
The general public, a few lobbyists and some concerned organisations get asked a few leading questions and the government then acts on its “consultation” no matter how ill founded or un just the idea. There has been a lot of this lately...let’s not add to it.
We have a border collie, and I'm astonished every day by the things he can do. He's incredible.
When he was a baby puppy, we went to a big family party with lots of dogs. My husband was throwing a stick for all of them.
All the dogs would run right up to his feet when he was ready to throw the stick...but not my puppy. He had worked out where the stick was going to be and positioned himself halfway across the field.
He didn't catch the stick tho, not once, because it would sail right at him...at which point he would strafe left, then do a big round circle up to approach it and corral it from behind. The other dogs just ran straight at it, and got there first.
He wasn't phased by what the big dogs were doing, he didn't want to copy them, or cling to near where my husband was either. & I didn't teach him any of that - he's just got shepherding in his blood, even when it's a stick not a sheep. He knows he's got to be a way away from the farmer so they can work together to bring in a herd.
So yeah. I don't like new laws or vague laws or moral panics or harm to animals, and I see why animal charities oppose it...but 'it's not the breed, it's the owner' seems just. incorrect. to me. Dogs are bred to be a certain way, it's a core part of how they exist alongside humans. Dog genetics is a whole art! "any dog can be a good family pet so long as you're nice to it" is sweet, but IMO, inadequate: i don't think any dog is beyond saving, but the average person does NOT have the capacity and skill to manage a challenging animal, and I don't mean any offence by that. It's just not what people sign up for when they think of a snuggly, chill, dopey, loveable family pet.
Apparently one of the issues with the American Bullies is that some really popular breeding dogs have either attacked people, or their children have attacked people, and yet that doesn't rule them out for more breeding in future. So yeah, I think taking breeding more seriously & doing better breed logging across all dogs (even mutts or non-kennel-club breeds) would help a lot. Its very probable that American Bullies, on the whole, are fine and safe, but it's just those bloodlines are prone to causing problems. If the breeding community had taken that seriously, we maybe wouldn't be here;
but at the same time, i feel like there's always going to be a risk of problems like this when your dogs bloodline includes dogs deliberately bred to attack stuff.
When he was a baby puppy, we went to a big family party with lots of dogs. My husband was throwing a stick for all of them.
All the dogs would run right up to his feet when he was ready to throw the stick...but not my puppy. He had worked out where the stick was going to be and positioned himself halfway across the field.
He didn't catch the stick tho, not once, because it would sail right at him...at which point he would strafe left, then do a big round circle up to approach it and corral it from behind. The other dogs just ran straight at it, and got there first.
He wasn't phased by what the big dogs were doing, he didn't want to copy them, or cling to near where my husband was either. & I didn't teach him any of that - he's just got shepherding in his blood, even when it's a stick not a sheep. He knows he's got to be a way away from the farmer so they can work together to bring in a herd.
So yeah. I don't like new laws or vague laws or moral panics or harm to animals, and I see why animal charities oppose it...but 'it's not the breed, it's the owner' seems just. incorrect. to me. Dogs are bred to be a certain way, it's a core part of how they exist alongside humans. Dog genetics is a whole art! "any dog can be a good family pet so long as you're nice to it" is sweet, but IMO, inadequate: i don't think any dog is beyond saving, but the average person does NOT have the capacity and skill to manage a challenging animal, and I don't mean any offence by that. It's just not what people sign up for when they think of a snuggly, chill, dopey, loveable family pet.
Apparently one of the issues with the American Bullies is that some really popular breeding dogs have either attacked people, or their children have attacked people, and yet that doesn't rule them out for more breeding in future. So yeah, I think taking breeding more seriously & doing better breed logging across all dogs (even mutts or non-kennel-club breeds) would help a lot. Its very probable that American Bullies, on the whole, are fine and safe, but it's just those bloodlines are prone to causing problems. If the breeding community had taken that seriously, we maybe wouldn't be here;
but at the same time, i feel like there's always going to be a risk of problems like this when your dogs bloodline includes dogs deliberately bred to attack stuff.
I couldn’t have put it better. +1
