Banned dogs - thoughts
- Thread starter Scottieoutdoors
- Start date
Belgian Shepherd Malinois are selected for their motivation, adaptability, and intelligence, not for aggression.
The Malinois is a shepherd dog. It was originally bred to be safe around people and families but prepared to take on wolves.
A 'working dog' is just that. Training makes a 'war dog', but being bred purely for aggression is what made the Staffordshire terrier into something folks feared.
Yet one of my neighbours has one; that dog greets every one with a smile, and spends it's days surrounded by children. It's a well reared, well trained family pet.
The sad thing is that the Staffie was originally bred for bull baiting, then when that was banned for dog fighting......note, we no longer condone either of those sports.
A 'working dog' is just that. Training makes a 'war dog', but being bred purely for aggression is what made the Staffordshire terrier into something folks feared.
Yet one of my neighbours has one; that dog greets every one with a smile, and spends it's days surrounded by children. It's a well reared, well trained family pet.
The sad thing is that the Staffie was originally bred for bull baiting, then when that was banned for dog fighting......note, we no longer condone either of those sports.
Belgian Shepherd Malinois are selected for their motivation, adaptability, and intelligence, not for aggression.
Says who? and this is the point isn't it? How to apply traits to genetics.
You never seen a Belgian turn into a 90 miles fur covered Nom-Nom missile and try to take a DS arm off? really?
There's news reports today of another person who has been attacked, and died, by a pair of XL Bullys.
Whether you like it or not, whether it's right or not, expect them to be banned in 5...4...3...
Sorry, but I'm not convinced by the defence, 'It's not the X* that kills people it's the owner.'
That's disingenuous and the intellectual equivalent of saying, 'what's that noise over there?' and running in the opposite direction.
Some things ARE designed to hurt people and you have to question one's choice to own them in the first place. In this particular debate then yes - the owner has to share some of the blame. But so does the animal. It's an aggressive breed and if you don't want an aggressive animal then why do you want something like that in the first place?**
I would argue that the mere fact you want something like that is enough to bar you from owning it.
Both need to be sorted out. The person AND the animal. It's not one or the other.
*Insert your bogey man of choice - dog, knife, gun, etc
** Again, insert dog breed of choice, zombie knife, AR15, etc
Whether you like it or not, whether it's right or not, expect them to be banned in 5...4...3...
Sorry, but I'm not convinced by the defence, 'It's not the X* that kills people it's the owner.'
That's disingenuous and the intellectual equivalent of saying, 'what's that noise over there?' and running in the opposite direction.
Some things ARE designed to hurt people and you have to question one's choice to own them in the first place. In this particular debate then yes - the owner has to share some of the blame. But so does the animal. It's an aggressive breed and if you don't want an aggressive animal then why do you want something like that in the first place?**
I would argue that the mere fact you want something like that is enough to bar you from owning it.
Both need to be sorted out. The person AND the animal. It's not one or the other.
*Insert your bogey man of choice - dog, knife, gun, etc
** Again, insert dog breed of choice, zombie knife, AR15, etc
The issue is aggression and the danger that poses.
There are standardised tests for aggression or aggressive tendencies. There's some tests developed specifically for rescue centres where the environment tends to create issues that affects dog behaviour. I wonder if there should be a test carried out on every dog. A high score and it gets restrictions such as muzzle, not left alone with minors or vulnerable, not allowed off the lead in public, etc. An even higher score it gets PTS.
BTW I have met a few small dogs that the owners walked with a muzzle on. One place I lived a I saw a Bedlington terrier and another place a dog something like a fluffy lapdog, Bichon frise, poodle cross.
On another point my dog has scared a few other dog owners off where we used to live. The circumstances were their dog was chasing and trying to bully my border terrier. She would turn and try to get away several times. Although she's no longer fast she can turn quicker than most others so she used that to get away. That didn't work so she curled her lips into a snarl and growl. Then into a loud growl and snap at the other dog's shoulder. No connection to the bite but the other dog gets the message and leaves her alone. Meanwhile the other dog owner runs over and finally puts their out of control dog on a lead to run off muttering about aggressive dogs off a lead.
However, occasionally such a dog owner apologises for letting their dog pester ours and who completely gets the language and behaviour of dogs such as the controlled and highly limited warning aggression of our dog.
I have no doubt whatsoever that our dog could cause real damage to another dog. It has a hard bite that's part of terriers. It can lock on. Being a terrier bred for vermin control, even for taking on the fox underground, it has a high pain threshold. In many ways characteristics bred into so called fighting dog breeds. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to find out that many of these fighting breeds came from the same origins as many of our nice, acceptable terrier breeds such as JRTs.
BTW staffies and JRTs are being interbred to create better vermin dogs. Indeed I've heard of them being bred to be put down badger setts to clear them or to take out foxes. My farmer source for that saw such a dog with its jaw hanging off at another farmer's yard, due to be put put down by the farmer apparently. That farmer bred them and border collie dogs for sheepdog uses and highly regarded or in demand. His other dogs he breeds goes a bit under the radar for obvious reasons.
Things are difficult with dogs. You can't simply measure and look at them to say what they are. Genetically it's possible but they're all a big mix up even genetics comes down to where the limits are to define a dog as breed x. Is a 50:50 cocker spaniel / poodle mix a poodle or cocker spaniel. What about if that bred with a poodle, is it a poodle? What do you use as the limit for poodle, cocker spaniel or neither/ mixed?
There are standardised tests for aggression or aggressive tendencies. There's some tests developed specifically for rescue centres where the environment tends to create issues that affects dog behaviour. I wonder if there should be a test carried out on every dog. A high score and it gets restrictions such as muzzle, not left alone with minors or vulnerable, not allowed off the lead in public, etc. An even higher score it gets PTS.
BTW I have met a few small dogs that the owners walked with a muzzle on. One place I lived a I saw a Bedlington terrier and another place a dog something like a fluffy lapdog, Bichon frise, poodle cross.
On another point my dog has scared a few other dog owners off where we used to live. The circumstances were their dog was chasing and trying to bully my border terrier. She would turn and try to get away several times. Although she's no longer fast she can turn quicker than most others so she used that to get away. That didn't work so she curled her lips into a snarl and growl. Then into a loud growl and snap at the other dog's shoulder. No connection to the bite but the other dog gets the message and leaves her alone. Meanwhile the other dog owner runs over and finally puts their out of control dog on a lead to run off muttering about aggressive dogs off a lead.
However, occasionally such a dog owner apologises for letting their dog pester ours and who completely gets the language and behaviour of dogs such as the controlled and highly limited warning aggression of our dog.
I have no doubt whatsoever that our dog could cause real damage to another dog. It has a hard bite that's part of terriers. It can lock on. Being a terrier bred for vermin control, even for taking on the fox underground, it has a high pain threshold. In many ways characteristics bred into so called fighting dog breeds. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to find out that many of these fighting breeds came from the same origins as many of our nice, acceptable terrier breeds such as JRTs.
BTW staffies and JRTs are being interbred to create better vermin dogs. Indeed I've heard of them being bred to be put down badger setts to clear them or to take out foxes. My farmer source for that saw such a dog with its jaw hanging off at another farmer's yard, due to be put put down by the farmer apparently. That farmer bred them and border collie dogs for sheepdog uses and highly regarded or in demand. His other dogs he breeds goes a bit under the radar for obvious reasons.
Things are difficult with dogs. You can't simply measure and look at them to say what they are. Genetically it's possible but they're all a big mix up even genetics comes down to where the limits are to define a dog as breed x. Is a 50:50 cocker spaniel / poodle mix a poodle or cocker spaniel. What about if that bred with a poodle, is it a poodle? What do you use as the limit for poodle, cocker spaniel or neither/ mixed?
How many bully dogs have attacked people compared to how many there are in the UK? Is it minority or majority? How does it compare with with other breeds? Is it minority of the breed / rare occurrence like with other breeds? How does it compare to knife or gun crime, is the rate it offending n higher or lower? What breeds are involved in dog attacks or aggression?
Imho before a knee jerk perhaps we need the data and quality evidence to understand the situation. We need evidence based laws not knee jerk laws. There's a quote about laws being made in haste I think that applies here. Wish I could remember it and give the source.
Imho before a knee jerk perhaps we need the data and quality evidence to understand the situation. We need evidence based laws not knee jerk laws. There's a quote about laws being made in haste I think that applies here. Wish I could remember it and give the source.
Unfortunately it's likely the case that behaviour of one creates behaviour in the other. I go back to that beast of a female staffie who's exemplary behaviour was likely down to the behaviour of its highly responsible owner.
In general, I am sick and tired of dog owners.
Sorry, but I am.
Have been for a long time, not just recently.
I am fed up that when out and about I turn a corner in a path, there's someone's dog and it starts barking and jumping up and then I have to tolerate the owner saying, 'Sorry, he's just curious' or 'It startled him' or 'he's normally quiet.'
I NEVER let them get away with it. I always turn to them and say, 'the outdoors is not a dog owner's theme park. If your animal acts like that then it should be on a lead when in public.'
I go back to my original point - if your garden isn't big enough for the animal and you have to take it out for exercise then you shouldn't have that animal.
Maybe that should be a test before someone can buy an animal - do you have enough space for it to live a healthy life?
Put it on a lead when in public, even if your name is Barbara Woodhouse and you know all there is to know about dogs and their behaviour. It's your animal, not mine, and I shouldn't have to contend with it.
One simple law - when in public ALL dogs should be on a lead. No excuses for breed or owner.
Sorry, but I am.
Have been for a long time, not just recently.
I am fed up that when out and about I turn a corner in a path, there's someone's dog and it starts barking and jumping up and then I have to tolerate the owner saying, 'Sorry, he's just curious' or 'It startled him' or 'he's normally quiet.'
I NEVER let them get away with it. I always turn to them and say, 'the outdoors is not a dog owner's theme park. If your animal acts like that then it should be on a lead when in public.'
I go back to my original point - if your garden isn't big enough for the animal and you have to take it out for exercise then you shouldn't have that animal.
Maybe that should be a test before someone can buy an animal - do you have enough space for it to live a healthy life?
Put it on a lead when in public, even if your name is Barbara Woodhouse and you know all there is to know about dogs and their behaviour. It's your animal, not mine, and I shouldn't have to contend with it.
One simple law - when in public ALL dogs should be on a lead. No excuses for breed or owner.
I love dogs, big and small. Had many breeds, looked after many breeds in a kennel job I had for a while.
I have learned to read dogs to a large extent, and the most aggressive dog I've ever seen was a chiwawa (I've spelt that phoeneticly)
It would even try to attack alsations. Soft as putty with humans though.
I've been bitten a couple of times, mostly by terriers of some sort.
It's not nessasarily the breed, but the way owners raise them, and the sort of behavior they allow their dogs to show, and get away with.
No dog is 100%reliable all the time, no human is either. We all have a point where we show our teeth, and snap, and occasionally, bite in some way.
It's a difficult one, as most dogs are family pets and totaly fine.
My stepdaughter has a huge bulldog thingy, so stupid and gentle. Couldn't find a friendlier nicer dog. But it's big, powerful, and to some, looks very scary.
How on earth do you decide a dog is a danger before it does damage?
It's mostly about the way it's raised. If it's raised to be aggressive, it will be, much like some humans.
Should we ban them too??
I have learned to read dogs to a large extent, and the most aggressive dog I've ever seen was a chiwawa (I've spelt that phoeneticly)
It would even try to attack alsations. Soft as putty with humans though.
I've been bitten a couple of times, mostly by terriers of some sort.
It's not nessasarily the breed, but the way owners raise them, and the sort of behavior they allow their dogs to show, and get away with.
No dog is 100%reliable all the time, no human is either. We all have a point where we show our teeth, and snap, and occasionally, bite in some way.
It's a difficult one, as most dogs are family pets and totaly fine.
My stepdaughter has a huge bulldog thingy, so stupid and gentle. Couldn't find a friendlier nicer dog. But it's big, powerful, and to some, looks very scary.
How on earth do you decide a dog is a danger before it does damage?
It's mostly about the way it's raised. If it's raised to be aggressive, it will be, much like some humans.
Should we ban them too??
You know those yappy, snarling wee dogs that some women keep in their handbags, and coo over when anyone says anything ?
I met one while I was trying to free a trolley recently. It growled and barked and did that feral rictus smile thing.
I turned to it's owner and said, "What happened to your dog ? who abused it so badly that it behaves like that ?", and walked away with my trolley leaving a stunned mullet of an idiot behind.
Honestly, I think the biggest issue is the owners. Either they are incapable of dealing rationally with rearing a dog into a pet, or they're trying to master a dog that really is stronger than they are.
I met one while I was trying to free a trolley recently. It growled and barked and did that feral rictus smile thing.
I turned to it's owner and said, "What happened to your dog ? who abused it so badly that it behaves like that ?", and walked away with my trolley leaving a stunned mullet of an idiot behind.
Honestly, I think the biggest issue is the owners. Either they are incapable of dealing rationally with rearing a dog into a pet, or they're trying to master a dog that really is stronger than they are.
...then dog dog is to be euthanized. This is my opinion.
I like dogs but only if they behave. And I am quite confident I can behave around dogs = don´t pat them on the head, don´t go to the dog but let the dog come to you if it want to. Let the dog sniff you before trying to pat it.
Armed forces are allowed to have weapons (that civilians aren´t) and they are trained to use them in a cautious and secure manner. Same with their dogs, they don´t use them to boost their ego but as a working dog.
So armed forces can have them but not civilians.
But you are talking about a genetic strain of DNA......
What are people saying - you cant have a 51% Rottweiler??
Madness.
Not at all.
What I would say is, that you can't have one that is even 1%.
Why would you want such an aggressive and intimidating looking animal?
And for all those who are about to say, 'we have/had one and it was the kindest, gentlest, animal you can imagine' then give it a break.
If you want an animal that looks like that then, by definition, you are the kind of person who shouldn't have one. You want it for its looks and the image it gives. Be honest with yourself.
And that makes you ineligible to own one.
Just like politicians - anyone who wants to be one shouldn't be allowed to be one.
Where I used to live I saw two couples with dogs. Both couples had two huskies each. In case you didn't know in American statistics on dog attacks and aggression including severity of injuries caused, the husky year after year appears in the top ten.
Now the reason I mention these two couples and their dogs is because of the similarities between them. They looked the same age, probably the same demographics seeming to be fairly comfortably off judging by their top branded outdoor clothing worn. They had dogs the same sort of age too. But that was where the similarities end. One couple had aggressive huskies and they had to battle to control them. The other couple could but didn't walk their huskies off the lead. They were always in control, well exercised and content.
The difference was the first couple had not understood what huskies needed and never got on top of the training or exercise. The second did their research. They ran with the dogs for many miles a day several times a day. They trained the dogs well. They used to go out with the local husky group but stopped because they thought that group were more about the look of the dog and the husky walks were too short with most owners barely having control of their dogs. The second couple often went bike joking and had a trike to go husky mushing too.
Their dogs got well exercised so were safer and content. One even tried to play nicely with my then young terrier. The first couple had huskies that would undoubtedly attack any dog that came near to them. It got so bad that the couple kind of got told off or warned off walking their dogs in that popular dog walking area. I heard the threat was they'd have them taken off them,. I still saw them but they only walked them when most dog walkers were not around. They had to change their routine and habits.
This obvious example shows an element of the issues with dog ownership. Ppl own dogs without the knowledge to truly look after them. They often buy under characteristics they like such as looks, size, etc. Not on true suitability. They don't train their dogs or get an expert to do so. This case it was a town environment which huskies are most definitely not suited to. Imho dogs like huskies are not good pets if they're not truly worked which makes them not a town dog breed or indeed a pet but a highly specialised working dog.
I think dogs should be matched to owners lifestyle. Big fighting dog breeds too, but not to ppl who fight dogs but those with the knowledge and experience to own a highly specialised dog breed. Without that you get dangerous dogs or aggressive, dangerous dogs.
Now the reason I mention these two couples and their dogs is because of the similarities between them. They looked the same age, probably the same demographics seeming to be fairly comfortably off judging by their top branded outdoor clothing worn. They had dogs the same sort of age too. But that was where the similarities end. One couple had aggressive huskies and they had to battle to control them. The other couple could but didn't walk their huskies off the lead. They were always in control, well exercised and content.
The difference was the first couple had not understood what huskies needed and never got on top of the training or exercise. The second did their research. They ran with the dogs for many miles a day several times a day. They trained the dogs well. They used to go out with the local husky group but stopped because they thought that group were more about the look of the dog and the husky walks were too short with most owners barely having control of their dogs. The second couple often went bike joking and had a trike to go husky mushing too.
Their dogs got well exercised so were safer and content. One even tried to play nicely with my then young terrier. The first couple had huskies that would undoubtedly attack any dog that came near to them. It got so bad that the couple kind of got told off or warned off walking their dogs in that popular dog walking area. I heard the threat was they'd have them taken off them,. I still saw them but they only walked them when most dog walkers were not around. They had to change their routine and habits.
This obvious example shows an element of the issues with dog ownership. Ppl own dogs without the knowledge to truly look after them. They often buy under characteristics they like such as looks, size, etc. Not on true suitability. They don't train their dogs or get an expert to do so. This case it was a town environment which huskies are most definitely not suited to. Imho dogs like huskies are not good pets if they're not truly worked which makes them not a town dog breed or indeed a pet but a highly specialised working dog.
I think dogs should be matched to owners lifestyle. Big fighting dog breeds too, but not to ppl who fight dogs but those with the knowledge and experience to own a highly specialised dog breed. Without that you get dangerous dogs or aggressive, dangerous dogs.
