Banned dogs - thoughts

[Robbi]

Looking and acting like human trash,

Define that.

 

[TeeDee]

One possibility (and it is just a possibility, which I'm sure has got holes, etc).
To own a gun you need to apply and have a background check.
Dogs, self-evidently, can also cause deaths. Just like a gun.
So, to own a dog, requires a background check, and anyone with suitable offences (I don't know, previous conviction for violence, looking and acting like human trash, that kind of thing) bars you from owning an animal.

So can kitchen knives..

Which is the chosen weapon of choice in a lot of murders.
Pretty sure we can't apply a rule of logic to a lot of this stuff as it unravels quickly.

 

[Van-Wild]

I was having this conversation at work just the other day.........

We all came to this conclusion:

If you own a dog, and it causes alarm or distress, or injures a person AND it is reported to the police, then the owner should be investigated and the dog detained until such time as a canine professional can ascertain if the dog is in fact, of sound temperament and properly trained.

If the answer to the above is no, then the dog is legally removed from the owner, and the owner is severely fined or imprisoned.

The fine needs to be massive and the prison sentence length on a sliding scale in relation to the fear, distress or injury caused by the dog. Ie: if a dog kills someone, then it's life for the owner.

OR

an out of control dog that causes injury to a person or other animal in a public place is detained by the police and PTS. no question no comeback. Harsh, but if you can't control your dog, it's on you. And the owner gets fined massively.

 

[TeeDee]

Finding this thread interesting - considering most us are probably known as ' a knife person' at our workplace ( and I don't think its meant in a good way )

Are there enough canine attacks to qualify for the change in Law an to the extent of punishment you are suggesting?

What if it was a law applied to Knives , Axes , Blades ( Oh My... ) - would you be rallying to support a change then without feeling unduly penalised?

 

[TLM]

If you own a dog, and it causes alarm or distress, or injures a person AND it is reported to the police, then the owner should be investigated and the dog detained until such time as a canine professional can ascertain if the dog is in fact, of sound temperament and properly trained.

I would start by applying that to some (quasi)hoomans.

 

[Van-Wild]

Are there enough canine attacks to qualify for the change in Law an to the extent of punishment you are suggesting?

What if it was a law applied to Knives , Axes , Blades ( Oh My... ) - would you be rallying to support a change then without feeling unduly penalised?

It's not about the volume of attacks. it's about the severity of injury. A change to our gun laws came about because of a single firearms incident (Dunblane 1996). A dog can cause life changing injury or death.

And yes, I would be rallying to support a change in the law to the same effect regarding sharps in public, IF the individual has no sound reason for carrying the article in a public place and causes alarm or distress or injury to another person or animal. But, this thread is about dogs..... not knives again......

 

[Stew]

It's not about the volume of attacks. it's about the severity of injury. A change to our gun laws came about because of a single firearms incident (Dunblane 1996). A dog can cause life changing injury or death.

And yes, I would be rallying to support a change in the law to the same effect regarding sharps in public, IF the individual has no sound reason for carrying the article in a public place and causes alarm or distress or injury to another person or animal. But, this thread is about dogs..... not knives again......

The knife analogy is a good one and what I’ve been thinking on myself. My knee jerk reaction is to ban the xl bully but when I considered all the knife legislation it has made me pause.

 

[Toddy]

I think using the knife analogy is taking the thread off track.

It's neither the knife nor the dog that's the issue, it's the behaviour of the knife owner, or the dog owner/ the dog that's the issue.

My personal opinion is that we rear dogs for two reasons; for working animals or pets/companions.
Bred for aggression is only for war dogs, and we don't do that anymore thankfully.
Unfortunately not everyone's got the message

 

[Stew]

I think using the knife analogy is taking the thread off track.

It's neither the knife nor the dog that's the issue, it's the behaviour of the knife owner, or the dog owner/ the dog that's the issue.

My personal opinion is that we rear dogs for two reasons; for working animals or pets/companions.
Bred for aggression is only for war dogs, and we don't do that anymore thankfully.
Unfortunately not everyone's got the message

Well not really. The analogy is being used to help not to start talking about that subject.

‘A comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect’

It could be any item. Guns, fast cars, whatever.

You’ve kind of backed up the comparison by saying it’s the owner in both cases.

 

[Toddy]

Well not really. The analogy is being used to help not to start talking about that subject.

‘A comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect’

It could be any item. Guns, fast cars, whatever.

You’ve kind of backed up the comparison by saying it’s the owner in both cases.

It was dragging in a false hare.

The issue is dogs, not knives.

If we can say, and we do, that guns are not knives, and the laws ought not cover both, but be specific to either, then the same applies to dogs and knives.

We know that we can breed dogs for certain traits; we need to not breed for aggression.

 

[Stew]

It was dragging in a false hare.

The issue is dogs, not knives.

If we can say, and we do, that guns are not knives, and the laws ought not cover both, but be specific to either, then the same applies to dogs and knives.

We know that we can breed dogs for certain traits; we need to not breed for aggression.

No one said they were the same thing but thinking on any knee jerk legislation in a similar way.

So, do you think ban the xl bully?

 

[Paul_B]

Banning zombie knives is capable of catching out useful knives like a machete or even bilhook.

Banning bully xl dogs could catch out dogs that are not dangerous or not bully xl dogs.

It's not a defined breed in the UK and everywhere but USA I believe. Also, the xl refers to size. Like poodles there's not one size. How do you separate a large standard bully and an xl one? BTW back a few years ago I believe poodles had a bit of a rep for being a snappy kind of dog. Supposedly one of the cleverest breeds even second behind border collies but that's a digression.

My point is that if you're proposing laws for anything considered to have the potential for harm you need to really design those laws with real care. You don't want unexpected consequences like catching useful tools like machetes or dogs that don't have issues of aggression in knee jerk legislation to certain still rare events that are covered by existing legislation anyway.

BTW you can make any dog aggressive if you want to. You can make any knives dangerous if you want to. You can make any human dangerous, in fact we are a very dangerous species so perhaps we should be banned and PTS. We created dangerous dog breeds, we make weapons and tools capable of great harm and we cause harm in an unsustainable way.

 

[Tengu]

Yes, how do you define this (probably mythical) dog?

My Dingo was not.

A friends Pharaoh hound would not be much use to an Egyptologist.

I see lots of trouble.

 

[Toddy]

No one said they were the same thing but thinking on any knee jerk legislation in a similar way.

So, do you think ban the xl bully?

I think that breeding such dogs, if aggression is a definite character trait, ought to be verbotten, and all such dogs sterilised.
That way those who have them as pets, still have their pets, just sort of calmed, and no more of them in a few years.
To keep a dog, in normal society, as an aggressive animal, is not acceptable.

Humanity has selectively bred dogs for specific character traits for millennia. We know how to breed out 'flaws'......just some eejits seem determined to breed for those flaws.

 

[Paul_B]

The guy who is credited with developing the cockapoo did so to provide a blind kid in America a guide dog that was hypoallergenic due to his severe allergies to dogs. He produced the perfect guide dog for this lad after many generations of breeding and mistakes.

Fast forward several years this guy has expressed regret at doing it because of the popularity and irresponsible breeding in response to demand. He thinks it's a terrible crossbreed with a lot of behavioural problems due to irresponsible breeding to cash in on demand by ignorant dog owners out for easy cash (dog breeding is not actually easy).

Then again look at what we've done to old breeds in turning them into brachiocephalic dog breeds. That's with mainstream, kennel club controls through shows and breed standards. The whole dog industry is flawed.

 

[TeeDee]

It's not about the volume of attacks. it's about the severity of injury. A change to our gun laws came about because of a single firearms incident (Dunblane 1996). A dog can cause life changing injury or death.

And yes, I would be rallying to support a change in the law to the same effect regarding sharps in public, IF the individual has no sound reason for carrying the article in a public place and causes alarm or distress or injury to another person or animal. But, this thread is about dogs..... not knives again......

My point being please don't support changing laws without really thinking hard about ALL the prospective angles and applications and to whom it may effect.

Laws are difficult and tiresome to remove/repeal once in place.

 

[TeeDee]

I think using the knife analogy is taking the thread off track.

It's neither the knife nor the dog that's the issue, it's the behaviour of the knife owner, or the dog owner/ the dog that's the issue.

My personal opinion is that we rear dogs for two reasons; for working animals or pets/companions.
Bred for aggression is only for war dogs, and we don't do that anymore thankfully.
Unfortunately not everyone's got the message

Respectfully no - previous in the thread was mention of banning specific pedigree or canine genetics.

So is it the Dog owners fault or the Dog?
Is it the knife wielder or the Knife?

 

[TeeDee]

Banning zombie knives is capable of catching out useful knives like a machete or even bilhook.

Banning bully xl dogs could catch out dogs that are not dangerous or not bully xl dogs.

It's not a defined breed in the UK and everywhere but USA I believe. Also, the xl refers to size. Like poodles there's not one size. How do you separate a large standard bully and an xl one? BTW back a few years ago I believe poodles had a bit of a rep for being a snappy kind of dog. Supposedly one of the cleverest breeds even second behind border collies but that's a digression.

My point is that if you're proposing laws for anything considered to have the potential for harm you need to really design those laws with real care. You don't want unexpected consequences like catching useful tools like machetes or dogs that don't have issues of aggression in knee jerk legislation to certain still rare events that are covered by existing legislation anyway.

BTW you can make any dog aggressive if you want to. You can make any knives dangerous if you want to. You can make any human dangerous, in fact we are a very dangerous species so perhaps we should be banned and PTS. We created dangerous dog breeds, we make weapons and tools capable of great harm and we cause harm in an unsustainable way.

I find myself in agreement.

 

[TeeDee]

I think that breeding such dogs, if aggression is a definite character trait, ought to be verbotten, and all such dogs sterilised.
That way those who have them as pets, still have their pets, just sort of calmed, and no more of them in a few years.
To keep a dog, in normal society, as an aggressive animal, is not acceptable.

Humanity has selectively bred dogs for specific character traits for millennia. We know how to breed out 'flaws'......just some eejits seem determined to breed for those flaws.

So how would you envisage the Belgian Malinois ? The canine of choice for the armed forces ? - would that be banned

 

[Paul_B]

One last point, you could catch out quite a few utility breeds if you ban breeds with aggressive/protective characteristics. Also miss a few dangerous dogs too. Imho it's only partly breed. Perhaps it's more breeder, owner, treatment / use of dog and training.

I saw a beast of a staffie plus something bigger in it. A real dangerous dog in potential. It was of a beautiful temperament. I would say it was similar in behaviour to cocker spaniels I've met. Calm and friendly. A wonderful big dog but still a dangerous breed in terms of potential. Wide and powerful mouth which is strongly linked to bite strength in dogs and mammals, indeed other animal classes too. I've also heard of people with bully xl dogs that had a similar temperament.

Years ago I used to visit local dog rescue centres as was planning to home a rescue dog. One time I walked along the kennels until I got to the end one. A huge beast jumped up barking at the wire of the enclosure / cage. First thought was it would fail due to the power and weight of the beast hitting the cage. It was taller than me and I'm 196cm tall! I looked at it then moved to the cage and offered the back of my hand. It dropped down, sniffed then enthusiastically locked my hand through the mesh. It then pressed it's flank against the mesh so I could stroke it. Soft as anything. The initial greeting was a fear thing. A dog possibly bigger and heavier than I was actually scared of me!!

Anyway that was a dogue de bourgogne or something like that. A mastiff breed that was bred to be aggressive and protective of French nobles I believe. I was glad that it got removed within a couple of months. Still a dangerous breed in terms of potential harm.