Banned dogs - thoughts

[Scottieoutdoors]

Have I created a monster with this thread Sorry to all, but I'm glad to see there is a lot of civility and thoughts going on.

I would say in the perfect world "It's not the X that does it, its the owner" I think that is actually a very fair statement, as @Paul_B has said a few times, you can make any dog dangerous/aggressive. However as I have said, smaller dogs, although potentially more prone to being gobby little cantankerous ****'s, are less capable of doing real damage to the average person.... additionally, they are not the canine of choice for someone who wants to be an unpleasant ****.

I don't think "ban that dog" is the entire answer to the problem, but to me, in my low expertise on the subject, makes sense as a partial, enforcement and punishment for various other dog crimes is equally important.

I think the knife/gun examples are not the worst ones, they both highlight the flaws in banning weapons, but equally they're understandable, they gave police the power to arrest someone who clearly was not going down to the woods today, purely because they had a style of weapon on them.... there is flexibility in the laws, however what concerns me/us all, is that it's down to the interpretation of the officer as to whether heading into a public woodland with a back pack and a blade is deemed acceptable or not - especially if there is a camping and fire ban in the woodland.. all scary to the carrier who had no intentions or desire or interest in causing upset, hurt or scare anyone.

With todays update on the topic, I must say despite not being keen on the ego dog styles, what concerns me more is the government banning them, then dusting their hands off, patting each other on the back for a job well done and filing that law under ten tons of uselessness that never gets enforced...additionally the law could now open up a huge can of legal worms whereby "yeh, my dog bit someone, but he isn't an XL Bully, he's an XXL bully..." (etc...)



EDIT: Not taking a ban them stance with this comment, but my concern with a lot of these arguments are that they follow the suit of "They shouldn't be banned because I know a _Family style dog_ that's a royal aggressive a-hole"... I wouldn't suggest a dog being banned means you ignore poor behaviour of all other dogs... I think that any badly behaved dogs need their owners to be punished...

 

[Paul_B]

Err, Dogue De Bordeaux males are 610-690 high to the shoulder, were you standing in a hole?

Ever seen one reared up on his legs against a kennel mesh fence looking more or less eye to eye with you? All slobber, teeth and noise?

BTW dog breed standards are not always accurate. I know pedigree border terriers that come from long lines of kc registered pedigree dogs that are well in excess of breed standards. Usually they're not bred from for show because of it. Our dog, when fit and healthy at a good physical weight according to the vet, is over 7kg when the breed standard is about 6,5kg for females. She's a bit long legged but 100% pedigree bred. There's another border terrier in our village that's fit and healthy for a 12yo but it's half as high as ours again. Pedigree but bigger than breed standards.

So whatever breed standards say about that mastiff breed that one was eye to eye with me on its hind legs. It still looked a classic of its breed.

 

[Paul_B]

Small dog bites can still hurt even if they're not as lethal as big dogs. Then again there's small staffies that can still bite hard. Also terriers can bite and lock on. It's not completely size. However imho aggression in any dog is still an issue and problem that needs changing. Personally I think any aggressive dog should result in control by the authorities if the owners can't or won't. Indeed even an aggressive Chihuahua dog should be controlled and retrained or put down. It's a symptom of poor ownership imho. Their next dog could be a staffie that rips a kid's face up. Zero tolerance. Learn to look after your dog and make it non-aggressive or get it pts, a big fine and banned from owning dogs.

 

[demographic]

Its worth reading through a book on different dog breeds just to see how many were bred for some fairly dodgy reasons. It's a fair percentage.
And when we had a hillfarm, the worst breed for worrying sheep was, Border Collies.

Careful what you wish for with bans.

 

[Wander]

Although I wouldn't push for a ban per se, neither would I oppose one.
As highlighted above, you could end up banning all dogs that way since all dogs are capable of attacking.
Instead, I go back to my original idea.
- Firstly, a background check on the owner.
- Secondly, you are only allowed a dog that you have enough land for it to exercise on (and if you subsequently move to somewhere with less land then you lose the dog!).
- Thirdly, ALL dogs must be on a lead and muzzled when in public.
That would be enough to prevent many people owning those especially dangerous animals without needing to ban anything, or be too much hassle for anyone casually wanting a dog on a whim.

 

[Scottieoutdoors]

@Paul_B

....I'm aware that small dog bites can still hurt, I have the scars on my hand from my dear near blind & deaf terrier who took hold of my hand instead of her squeaky toy during play time....
I'm not convinced its a sentence that requires a continual back and forth. We all know small dogs have a great capability of biting, the argument is that when they lose their brown matter, they be booted to the moon with relative ease (not speaking from experience here), a larger dog losing its brown matter is far more challenging to deal with - speak from experience here... I haven't ever particularly checked whether I have scars on one of my cheeks from the experience, however it was not pleasant - fortunately not my face cheek!

But again, we agree, dogs displaying violence require a look into, but now we're delving into money and time from a policing point of view.

What a ban is trying to do is profile a type of dog which is the target of those individuals who are deemed somewhat antisocial.

@Wander I think taking dogs from owners that move would create more aggressive canines, dogs love stability.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

The media must be working very hard to find all these XL bully attacks. Strange that these multiple attacks are occurring at this particular time. Must be something in the water.

 

[Woody girl]

I notice, the conversation is about the dogs and their owners. Although part of the problem, in the case of most of these dogs, shouldn't it be the breeders that are targeted? If they are not allowed to breed them, the dog won't exist.

 

[Robbi]

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.

Toddy, put in " nanny dog" to Google.

 

[TeeDee]

An amazing thread for all the wrong reasons.

I'm out.

 

[Decacraft]

Just my 2pence worth-

There was an xl that attacked and killed an 11 year old boy in a local village near me, the dog was known in my area for being troublesome. The man in charge sold it, and the people who had it ended up in prison because there was footage of the dog previously trying to go for children and difficult to restrain and they had no control of it.

I dont think the law needs to change, no need to ban dogs of certain breeds, but there needs to be something done in terms of the owners who have no control or regard to the wellbeing of the animal and raise it to be of a vicious kind.

Of all the stories of attacks in the news, have all owners been general folk or the kind that want this kind of dog as a status?

I'm of the firm belief there is only a bad dog owner- have been around many breeds and working dogs, all of which have been able to be under control and obey commands.

Why not just ask owners of particular breeds to keep a muzzle on them in public?



Again, it's supposedly law to clean up dog mess and to keep them on leads in certain places, yet nothing is done if not.
There is simply not enough man/woman power in terms of officers patrolling the local areas to keep anything under control, and certainly less of a deterent for people who fall short of being law-abiding citizens.

A dangerous dog of any breed can be impounded/ put down, yet attacks of all breeds still happen.

Using a knife in an attack is against the law, yet it still happens.

 

[slowworm]

The media must be working very hard to find all these XL bully attacks. Strange that these multiple attacks are occurring at this particular time. Must be something in the water.

Or perhaps previous attacks have been ignored for too long? I think the fact someone managed to film a young girl being attacked has encouraged the media.

Sadly I think were going to see more attacks by various breeds and a lot more animal cruelty as too many people bought dogs during lockdown and now don't want to look after them or keep them.

 

[Cuckoo996]

Xl bully's are not a breed, they are an unregulated crossbreed.

Every breed is a crossbreed, all originally derived from the wolf.

Before the dawn of fashionable breeds like the labradoodle etc, we had the traditional breeds, labs, collies etcetera.

Those breeds took hundreds of years and thousands of crossings to have the breeds and their behaviours we have in the lineage today

The problem with the new "breeds" we have today, is not new, it's a problem that has been around for thousands of years.

Some crossing of breeds will give you excellent composition and behaviour, others not so. It's going to take at least 50 years to refine the XL bully into the dog people WANT it to be now.

I mean how about if we crossed Geoffery Dhamer with Mother Teresa? Both human, wonder what the outcome will be?

Everybody clings to the days that Pitbulls were Nanny dogs, that's just it though, they WERE...... past tense, it's gone, humans. came in and meddled and now you have an aggressive breed.

Does anyone think or research before buying a dog? No, they see other people with a certain breed and think "Wow I want one, it's cool brings so much attention and makes them look tough" or whatever other nonsense we humans think at the time.

Truth is, it's not just bad owners, it's bad humans.
We create something without thinking, then cry when it goes wrong.
We are to blame.
We are breeding these dogs without thinking, for money, popularity and to instill fear and power.

Stop buying breeds that are a new creation, stop buying what is popular, just to be the cool kid. Get a dog that fits, research the breed, find what will fit your life, not what will fit your Instagram. It's not fair on the dog or the owner.

And to add a personal gripe.......
Dog owners that humanise their dogs,
STOP! Just stop it!
Its a dog, not a baby, not a human child, it's a dog that lives a dogs life and does dog things. It's not a fur baby, it's an animal companion!
If you want a baby, make one, if you can't adopt.

I know there will be many people against my opinion, but if you put the instant offence on the shelf for a moment, wait and think, as much as you dislike it, it's true.

Apologies for the rant and ruffled feathers, but it's an age old argument, and the humans who breed these mixes are the ones to blame.


Sent from my SM-A326B using Tapatalk

 

[slowworm]

And to add a personal gripe.......
Dog owners that humanise their dogs,

I understand your point, but our late rescue Lab was more human than many humans I've met.

 

[Tengu]

Im deeply unhappy with dogs as babies too, always have been.

But, lets face it, there are too many human babies and they are out of reach for many.

 

[Scottieoutdoors]

@Decacraft "Of all the stories of attacks in the news, have all owners been general folk or the kind that want this kind of dog as a status?"

THIS is exactly the question that needs asking before I think dogs should be banned. As stated too many times now, I'm not a fan of these ego breeds, however if there are cases that all of these dog owners have all had bad intentions with their dogs, then I'd be happy for dogs to remain unbanned. However if you have dogs randomly flipping, then thats where breeds need to be questioned.

 

[Cuckoo996]

I understand your point, but our late rescue Lab was more human than many humans I've met.

You rescued your late lab, He/She had probably been humanised before you gave them their forever home, I'm truly sorry for your loss.

 

[Cuckoo996]

Im deeply unhappy with dogs as babies too, always have been.

But, lets face it, there are too many human babies and they are out of reach for many.

Its a sad and hard fact of life nobody wants to accept. Some people can have things, others can't. It's the whole human condition, want what you can't have.
I may come across as cold and mean in posts, but in reality I'm not,
I'm just a realist.
Some people can have kids, others can't, as sad, heartbreaking and unfair as it is, that's life. People would be happier if they could learn to accept what is out of their control, and do what is in their control.

Also I'm not out to offend anyone, or a keyboard warrior this is just my opinion and life experience.
I'm really passionate about the whole dog world, I've rescued many, many dogs over the years, currently have a working Collie. The only dog out of 20+ rescues I've ever had from puppy, and over the years I have seen the bad side of dog owners and breeding.

 

[Scottieoutdoors]

@Cuckoo996
I too hope people are not offended by your points, they're valid...I certainly don't disagree with you when I see how some dogs are humanised, but perhaps I do disagree in your own eyes. My dear doggo is a great friend and she enjoys snuggling up close, but we have various routines/circumstances in which that occurs... she eats in her bowl at set times (not at the table...), she goes for walks where we both play around and whilst with me on her standard walk, she works for her ball.
I'm not convinced I overly humanise her, I more likely canine-ise myself as I have more fun playing at her level/style.

 

[British Red]

I have made a point repeatedly on all the "ban it" & "it should be illegal" threads. My point is that we should establish a calm, rational & consistent framework.

What we usually end up talking about is making something illegal that the majority use or own responsibly but a minority misuse to the detriment of others.

If we believe that this is a sound basis for legislation then, if we are to be rational, we should begin by banning the things that have the greatest detrimental effect on others.

There is one item in the UK that most use responsibly but a minority do not. It is a factor in the majority of violent crime in the UK. If we are proposing to ban such items then that must surely be the place to start

The item in question is alcohol.

If we are going to ignore the single most common unifying factor in UK violence, then let's not pretend that such bans are based in reason or logic and acknowledge them to be emotional or political responses that lack consideration in a broader framework of law.