Banned dogs - thoughts

[Scottieoutdoors]

I think every single comment here raises a valid point regardless of whether or not they conflict with each other.

I think a dog being a nasty ____ is not beyond any breed, however as an adult, small breeds regardless of how vicious are likely easy to deal with. In fact, I remember a good few years ago a family calling their lost jack russel whilst standing on the beach and this thing was panicking around running back to a busy car park... I manage to calm it for a second, but I knew it was going to bolt, I also knew it was going to be a nasty little **** and with that in mind I got close enough to grab it behind its shoulders with both hands and lift it at arms length into the air!! Turned into a wriggling little snapping alligator, but could do nothing to me in that position, I walked it to the beach and let it go in their direction... easy with a small dog.

I think smaller and friendlier breeds - labs etc are bought with the best intentions (and I know what is said about intentions...) but bigger more designed not to be "little wuffles" :haha: are not bought without the additional thought of aggressive aesthetics...(Imo)... and if you push a big dog into bad behaviour or you are incapable the damage is far greater.

Staffies are such a shame, they're beautiful natured and friendly dogs, often incorrectly bought by some slovenly noodle who thinks it makes him look tougher.

 

[Wander]

Owning an animal is a privilege not a right.
And being able to take your dog (any dog) outside for a walk in public is a privilege not a right.
If you do not have a garden (or land) big enough to exercise your animal then you should either get a smaller animal or have none at all. It's that simple.

 

[rich d2]

The size has got to matter, I’ve got and had dogs (but all small due to the fact that I’ve had kids, cats etc as well) all dogs have off moments (just like humans), they’re sentient things and can get spooked, scared, feel unwell and react in a way out of character. If it’s a huge, powerful dog the consequences of an out of character episode are much worse. Banning breeds seems to switch the idiots who own these for protection, status and aiding in violence to the next type of potentially violent cross. Maybe instead of a ban on breeds make it a requirement for dogs of a certain size to wear muzzles in public - that would seem to fit out a lot of the problems. It wouldn’t however stop the tragic deaths of little kids who come into contact with these dogs in their homes, but maybe that’s more down to the parents than the dog owners.

 

[Tengu]

I saw (to my mind) an odd looking beast in the summer.

In fact it did not look like a pet at all. (People do keep them as pets)

So I asked what it was...I was expecting an answer like a Shina inu (Got that wrong, I think, red Japanese breed)

And I was told it was a Romanian rescue dog (a very common breed these days).

An here I was thinking `Dingo`

So, maybe not a pet, a feral dog. (Certainly wins first prize as interesting)

Any incidents with these?

 

[stonepark]

It needs true deterrence, how about of your dog attacks someone, as well as the dog losing its ********, the owner does too.... there would immediately be a marked decrease in such breeds .....

 

[MartinK9]

.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

Every decade or so, there seems to be a spate of media reported fatal dog attacks, usually concerning one breed or type, with the inevitable calls to ban it. Dogs bite people everyday, mostly because 'owners' don't have a clue about canine psychology nor understand the specifities of the particular breed or cross they have. Of course only the spectacular attacks make the news, the media aren't interested in little lucy, disfigured by the family's Westie because she wouldn't leave it alone at feeding time but even the most dramatic attacks invariably have a series of warning signs, long before the 'big one' which could be avoided if someone was around able to interprete the signs & then bring the dog back onto the right track.
I don't have any answers because the problem lies with humans, not dogs but there is no point in having a banned dog list if it isn't strictly enforced.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

I saw (to my mind) an odd looking beast in the summer.

In fact it did not look like a pet at all. (People do keep them as pets)

So I asked what it was...I was expecting an answer like a Shina inu (Got that wrong, I think, red Japanese breed)

And I was told it was a Romanian rescue dog (a very common breed these days).

An here I was thinking `Dingo`

So, maybe not a pet, a feral dog. (Certainly wins first prize as interesting)

Any incidents with these?

Yeah, Shibu Inus are in vogue at the moment.
The rescue dogs, rescued from the rescue shelters in Eastern Europe such a Romania, have often spent their lives on the city streets & are usually well socialised with dogs, cats & people & won't cause any major problems when adopted in more gentler locations such as the UK.

 

[Kadushu]

Ideally the law should prevent serious incidents rather than punishing people for causing them. I.e. a short prison sentence for a bad owner is little comfort to the parents of a dead child.

 

[Forest fella]

I just heard on Heart Radio ''there are other stations'' that another person was attacked by the Big Bloody Bully.

 

[Forest fella]

It was a 11yr Old girl attacked in Birmingham

 

[Tengu]

How many people are killed by dieseases spread by dogs?

 

[Forest fella]

Pass but I'd prefer to go that way

 

[Pattree]

Ideally the law should prevent serious incidents rather than punishing people for causing them. I.e. a short prison sentence for a bad owner is little comfort to the parents of a dead child.

What preemptive action then do you suggest law enforcement take in order to prevent serious incidents?

Of cars: Laws don’t prevent road accidents, laws don’t prevent uninsured road accidents involving unlicensed drivers and untaxed cars.

Of dogs: the same applies.

The Blue Cross article demonstrates how very difficult it is to define specific canine attributes in any objective way. Subjective laws are bad laws.

There are some things the law cannot do.

I wish I could propose an alternative. I really feel for Ana Paun and anyone else injured by a dog but without workable proposals we cannot blame either the government or law enforcement.

 

[Wander]

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.

 

[Paul_B]

Who should have that licence in a family pet situation?

Small dogs might be able to be handled but might not. They're quicker than humans and of they don't want to be caught they won't be. That Jack Russell terrier didn't stop you catching it but once caught it didn't like it and wanted to be let loose. That doesn't completely mean you could control it when it was truly aggressive and out for harm.

One of my postie friends got bitten by a small dog on his calf. It was painful and led to a couple of months off work or longer I can't remember now. He couldn't walk without crutches for a month and the bruise spread right up his leg from the bite site. It was nasty. He was an adult. What about a toddler? How much damage and how serious would that dog cause on someone who's young and more vulnerable?

I'm sorry but imho small dog owners don't get a pass on this. I strongly believe ppl who own any dog should firstly treat them like a dog. Secondly learn how to handle them safely. Thirdly treat them like dogs not like humans or "fur babies". Fourthly have the dog identified as being owned by an individual with contact details who takes ultimate responsibility for anything done by the dog to anyone or anything else. Fifthly enforcement. I do think a dog should be assessed for what that dog is and behaves like not just for its breed. If necessary a dog should be put down and the owner banned from owning it when it first shows signs of aggression. I have no idea of the mechanism for this though.

On a side note, I do think small, aggressive dogs should be put down as surely as a big, dangerous breed that's aggressive should be. I think you'd end up with more pomeranian dogs being put down than staffies!

If you doubt this Google tie American pass through or by data on dog aggression. This is data recorded by trained and certified dog behaviourists carrying out a standardised test on dog aggression. Every test carried out gets centrally recorded against breed and a ranking / score given for each. It's actually interesting read on dog aggression.

BTW the only dog that I've been aggressively bitten by (my border terrier bit me gently a lot with its pin teeth when it's adult ones were coming through) that only aggressive dog bite was from a small, black an tan dog not too far from a Manchester terrier or a heeler. A small dog we were all terrified of a young kids. Luckily I was able to ride away with just ripped trousers and a little blood on my ankle. The big dogs i met when young were gentle giants, more likely to accidentally hurt me by knocking me over in exuberant play.

One last point, in my lifetime there's been alsations, Doberman, staffies, English bull terriers, bull terriers of any kind and xl bully classed as the latest ,"devil dog". Out of them alsations Doberman, rottweilers and j think to some extent staffies have had aggression bred out of them, mostly. It seems to me to be a cycle of shifting fear over dogs from one to another then on again in regular intervals.

 

[slowworm]

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.

One of the problems with that is that there is a large amount of gun crime using illegally held firearms. More handgun shootings since most hand guns were banned for example.

As they say, criminals don't follow laws and I can't see the resources put into stopping unlicensed people from having dogs.

I think cracking down on antisocial and low level criminal behaviour would help with multiple things. I can't help thinking people who own a dog as a weapon commit all sorts of other crime as well.

 

[Wander]

One of the problems with that is that there is a large amount of gun crime using illegally held firearms.

Yes, true enough. But not as much as if any Tom, Dick, or Harry could have one.
I think it's fair to say that it is considerably easier to secrete a handgun on oneself that it would be to secrete a XL Bully, wouldn't you think?
Anyway, to buy a gun you have to produce your licence. Ditto for purchasing a dog.
Will that prevent crime?
No, there will always be some.
But there would be less, in the same way (for example) there is less gun crime in the UK than there is in the US.
It won't stop it, no.
Nothing will.
But it'll make it more difficult and prevent casual dog ownership in the same way it prevents casual gun ownership. And it'd be a lot harder to go out with an illegally owned dog than it is an illegally owned gun. It's the casual, irresponsible, owners who are the problem.

 

[Scottieoutdoors]

@Paul_B
I feel this is very much a chicken and egg situation.

There are, in my experience 3 types of owners:
1) Those that know,
2) Those that don't know,
3) Those that are detestable.

Small dogs can be ratbags for sure, but they are not purchased in order to be a ratbag, they're more often than not purchased to be a family companion etc...however sometimes they're a gateway doggo, so poor training, poor genetics, etc can result in an unpleasant creature, however the owners are not pushing those characteristics. So who in the above are likely to be small dog owners - Numbers 1 & 2.

Bigger dogs have a cool factor, a tough guy factor etc, you can get many owners who know what they're doing, who create an absolutely lovely large beast that's as friendly and dopey as they come, but this is equal to many small dog owners, so Number 1.
However, you also get many owners that want a big lovely dog because they want a big dopey friend, but have no idea what they're doing Number 2. Then you get the Grade A sphincters that want a nasty set of teeth to make them feel better about themselves - Category Number 3.

I'd also say there are likely more small dogs than larger dogs, but this skews the statistics.

Above is not an argument to ban big dogs, it's just my experience on the styles of owners.

I've been bitten by a few dogs, small, large. Fortunately none did much damage - My terrier possibly did the worst, drew blood and left a scar, however in her defence, her eyesight and hearing at her elderly age was extremely poor and we were playing with the squeaky toy and she grabbed my hand rather than the toy...

Whilst I appreciate your experience is very much your experience and certainly not unique (small dog syndrome phrase exists for a reason) it's still undeniable that small dogs are far less capable of the devastating damage that can be inflicted by larger out of control dogs who according to the media (if it is to be trusted) are seemingly owned by either incapable 2's or horrible 3's.


@Wander

"Police officer badly bitten whilst strip searching suspect.... The officer adorned his rubber gloves and informed the suspect to bend over, upon inspection he was set upon by an XL bully"

 

[demographic]

Do the media only report on these attacks when the govenment is in trouble and needs a diversion from corruption?
I can't remember when the last dangerous dogs act came in, when John Major was in power?

Do we ban all hunting dogs? Pointers, Spaniels, Poodles (ever seen a big Standard Poodle up close? Not smaller than a Doberman) Vislas, Patterdales, Dachshunds etc?
Or ones that have historically been fighting dogs? Staffies, Bulldogs, Caine Corsos etc.
Guard dogs? By by Alsations then, or are we calling them sheepdogs? Could go either way really. Mastiffs,? Great Danes?
What about dogs bred to hunt lions? Ohh, they sound nasty dont they, lets ban Ridgebacks? No?

Rotties? Sheepdogs, more or less.
Ok lets do it by temprement with other dogs? Say by by to almost every Patterdale Ive ever met then, struppy little gits.

I'm not sure this country needs more misguided legislation, unless you fancy handing in yer axe and every penknife you own. Just in case like.