I'm not sure exactly what the laws are regarding the dangerous dogs act. I was just addressing the comment about them needing to be removed from society.
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.
Sorry but, I disagree with that.
Something like a Sporting Cocker Spaniel and a house pet Cocker Spaniel would fall under the same breed restriction if they were banned. Both appear to be similar but, their personalities and drives are substantially different.
My German Shepherd was banned in some areas and allowed in others with no regard to him, his personality and drive, or me as an owner.
I am sick and tired of people labeling all Pit Bulls as psychopathically aggressive fighting dogs. Some of the sweetest house pets I have ever run across were pit bulls. However, they were labeled as terrors on paws and needed to be put down for public safety.
Blindly labeling something as bad with no regard for what was banned or persecuted led to the Nazi atrocities and horrendous segregation the in USA for decades. Granted these were people but, the thought process was basically the same.
Ban bad dogs and bad owners, not entire breeds in all circumstances! Lastly, the banned breeds aren't the only dogs to bite or attack people. What about them?
XL Bullies are responsible for over 50% of dog attack fatalities in the UK despite only accounting for a tiny percentage of overall dogs owned in the UK.
Nazi comparisons are ludicrous.
Well, we will have to agree to disagree. It is preferable to do that without resorting to implied gross insults IMO.
By the way, the shooting fraternity now consider the Cockers two breeds - show/house and working. A working stock Cocker in a confined environment will cause havoc and a house cocker would be useless in the field. You have used a very good example of how selective breeding generates traits that are ingrained.
I suspect most xl bullies are owned by a certain demographic and that would have a direct bearing on those statistics. So, I think there is more to it than just the breed.
Personally, I don't have faith that a ban on specific breeds will make a huge difference to the long term figures.
Banning anything never works, just creates a black market and sends it underground, making it more difficult to detect and even more laws .
It's the breeders and owners of these dogs that need targeting.
Any dog can bite. I've worked in kennels and been around dogs all my life. I've had a few bites , not many, but they have mostly been from over excited Jack Russels. Shall we ban them? Of course not.! Any dog can bite at any time if they are scared, over excited, or badly trained.
It's the breeders and owners of these dogs that need targeting.
Any dog can bite. I've worked in kennels and been around dogs all my life. I've had a few bites , not many, but they have mostly been from over excited Jack Russels. Shall we ban them? Of course not.! Any dog can bite at any time if they are scared, over excited, or badly trained.
If Jack Russels were accounting for more than 50% of deaths caused by dog attacks then yeah, we probably should think about it.
Though of course it isn’t about whether a dog bites that makes the decision in isolation, it is the danger posed by the attacks. I don’t think anyone would argue that an attack by a Jack Russel is more likely to be fatal than an XL Bully.
How much of the XL Bullies issue is related to the owner's lack of socialization of their dog and general training and treatment? Seems very similar to the Pit Bull hysteria in some cities in the USA.
If your "pet" really can't be socialized and trained, perhaps it needs to be put down, or at a minimum removed from the breeding pool.
In regards to my analogy, blind demonization of anything is bad, whether it was Hitler's demonization of Jewish people or the demonization of Pit Bulls in the USA.
I don't have personal experience with XL Bullies but, what I see from afar appears to be very similar to the Pit Bull issue in the USA. What I do know is that I watched people absolutely FREAK OUT when they saw my 100+ pound German Shepherd. That dog had a very soft heart and was absolutely people centeric and was constantly looking for a pet or scratch or for someone to throw a stick for him to fetch. He was as far from an ATTACK DOG as you could get!
According to BBC Verify, 10 people died because of dog bite injuries in England and Wales last year, if XL Bullies were responsible for 50% of them that's five in a year. if you believe that five deaths per year are grounds to ban XL Bullies then what are your thoughts about the 244 fatal knife attacks in the UK last year. would you argue that knives should be banned also?
Well, if we are ignoring the fact that knives are banned in public (other than sub 3" slipjoints), I'd suggest that a knife doesn't just get spooked and bite someone's throat out of its own accord.
No we're not ignoring the fact that knives are banned in public, we're making the point that despite being banned in public they were still used in fatal attacks.
I think your comparison with the Holocaust is insulting and I believe you should delete the statement (and I will then delete this quote).
You’ve said you don’t know about XL Bullies and are talking about people’s reaction to a different breed of dog in a different country.
Regardless of your first comment, the fact is that XL Bullies are vastly disproportionately more responsible for fatalities and serious injury than other dogs in the UK. Whether this is down to the owners, the breed or both, there is only one of these things which can be regulated which is the legality of the dog itself, since it’s not illegal for people to be stupid.
Regarding your analogy, as I initially said I’m afraid it’s quite absurd to compare the banning of ownership of a dog breed to the Nazi genocide carried out against Jewish people and others.
just watch the many many vids on YouTube from the US where pitties and pittie cross dogs literally help raise the families young children, they even 'adopt' puppies young kittens and more than a time or two chicks or ducklings when they are being fostered
The issue isn’t that all of these dogs are stone cold killing machines, not at all.
The issue is that when they do attack the damage they can cause is devastating, often fatal.
I’ve lost count of the children maimed by the beloved family pet who wouldn’t hurt a fly (until the day he did)
If Jack Russell’s weighed 60kg I dare say they would be banned too.
The issue is that when they do attack the damage they can cause is devastating, often fatal.
I’ve lost count of the children maimed by the beloved family pet who wouldn’t hurt a fly (until the day he did)
If Jack Russell’s weighed 60kg I dare say they would be banned too.
People should be responsible for their dogs no matter the breed. If the owner has a breed they can't control, they should adopt the dog out or send it to a shelter so it doesn't become a problem. If the owner doesn't have the time or skill to socialize and train a dog, they should not own one in the first place and should adopt it out when they realize they can't meet its needs for socialization, training, exercise, etc.
This includes the little dogs that generally can't cause fatal injuries but, have a generally much higher likelihood to bite someone in my experience.
The fact a DOG BAN is needed is a basic failure of breeders and owners having puppies end up in the wrong hands.
The haters who want to ban dogs, to me is a bit like banning cars because drunk and distracted drivers kill people. Put your bottle and cellphone down, don't ban the car!
This includes the little dogs that generally can't cause fatal injuries but, have a generally much higher likelihood to bite someone in my experience.
The fact a DOG BAN is needed is a basic failure of breeders and owners having puppies end up in the wrong hands.
The haters who want to ban dogs, to me is a bit like banning cars because drunk and distracted drivers kill people. Put your bottle and cellphone down, don't ban the car!
You need to undergo training, have a license and insurance to drive a car - same as dangerous dogs.
@sidpost
Your analogies just do not compare at all with the situation no matter how hard you try. No-one here is a hater; I have always had dogs, I love dogs. There's a huge difference between dogs that are bred to do one thing and then taught to be something else (Alsatians - as in German Shepherd, are herding dogs, some are taught to be guard dogs for example) and dogs that are selectively bred to be aggressive and kill.
There's a lot of new evidence of DNA traits in animals and humans - you can't take traits out of a breed by training.
Your analogies just do not compare at all with the situation no matter how hard you try. No-one here is a hater; I have always had dogs, I love dogs. There's a huge difference between dogs that are bred to do one thing and then taught to be something else (Alsatians - as in German Shepherd, are herding dogs, some are taught to be guard dogs for example) and dogs that are selectively bred to be aggressive and kill.
There's a lot of new evidence of DNA traits in animals and humans - you can't take traits out of a breed by training.
In terms of the dogma used to justify banning dogs:
I find the arguments used in dog bans to be generally similar to those used during segregation and "Jim Crow" laws in the Southern USA or, various countries' attempts to stamp out Native cultures; thinking of you Canada and USA. The tropes used in WWII by the Nazi's and Apartheid in South Africa are similar as well.
Blindly labeling an entire population group in a negative or positive light isn't right. Are all Russian's bad? Are all XL Bullies bad? How about all <insert group> bad?
Criminals can be rehabilitated or they can reoffend. The same goes for pets that have bad owners where many are "saved" with proper training and supervision and others need to be put down.
So yes, I am opposed to outright bans on the symptom while not seeing the causes (intentionally plural causses)!
The USA has a lot of history on this with things like German Shepherds which were used by the Jim Crow South (USA) to terrorize Civil Rights supporters. That image has been present a long time and still has obvious effects in some segments of society which I personally experienced with my German Shepherd. If my dog was a threat or menace, I definitely would not have taken him out in public and I would have put him down if I needed to; if he could not be a safe dog around other people and children I would remove the threat.
Instead of banning a dog breed, how about we qualify owners with something other than their BANK ACCOUNT! And, if they have never owned a dog before, make them prove they are capable with an easier breed first!
While Bullies aren't my thing, I respect the right of people to own them if they are equipped to handle them properly. For people not properly equipped, I don't care what the breed is, they should not own a dog!
I find the arguments used in dog bans to be generally similar to those used during segregation and "Jim Crow" laws in the Southern USA or, various countries' attempts to stamp out Native cultures; thinking of you Canada and USA. The tropes used in WWII by the Nazi's and Apartheid in South Africa are similar as well.
Blindly labeling an entire population group in a negative or positive light isn't right. Are all Russian's bad? Are all XL Bullies bad? How about all <insert group> bad?
Criminals can be rehabilitated or they can reoffend. The same goes for pets that have bad owners where many are "saved" with proper training and supervision and others need to be put down.
So yes, I am opposed to outright bans on the symptom while not seeing the causes (intentionally plural causses)!
The USA has a lot of history on this with things like German Shepherds which were used by the Jim Crow South (USA) to terrorize Civil Rights supporters. That image has been present a long time and still has obvious effects in some segments of society which I personally experienced with my German Shepherd. If my dog was a threat or menace, I definitely would not have taken him out in public and I would have put him down if I needed to; if he could not be a safe dog around other people and children I would remove the threat.
Instead of banning a dog breed, how about we qualify owners with something other than their BANK ACCOUNT! And, if they have never owned a dog before, make them prove they are capable with an easier breed first!
While Bullies aren't my thing, I respect the right of people to own them if they are equipped to handle them properly. For people not properly equipped, I don't care what the breed is, they should not own a dog!
