Ban the deed not the breed!!

[grimbeny]

Obviously the owners are responcible Nixie, that is not the debate. The problem is there are too many people who are not responcible with animals, which makes keeping dogs that are exceptionally vulnerable to being problem animals too dangerous for the rest of us. I am not a dog owner and I would prefer it if the dregs of society that keep these animals in such away that makes them man killers be prevented from owning them.

 

[SperO]

I agree with Grim, better control like keeping venomous snakes. I really dislike dogs and big ones freak me out. I heard the most aggressive are chiuahas (yea my spelling sux) but your hardly likely to be killed by an aggressive 10cm high dog.

 

[thelionking]

I am truly a dog lover, but I disagree with you about this. The thing is, even while you might have a perfectly calm dog, it doesn't mean she is a bad breed. By your descriptions, your dog is stable and you have been a responsible owner. However, pit bulls are still a problem breed. If you look up pit bull attack, you would find hundreds of sickening stories. Meanwhile, if you looked up "Border Collie attack" you would maybe find one or two, which did not result in death. Whippet attack would probably show no results. As you can see, some dog breeds are more dangerous than others, so why are we taking the risk, by allowing anybody to purchase any dogs? Pit bulls, bull terriers etc. should simply be banned.

 

[notechistiger]

The problem is that a lot of the news stories labelled "pit bull attacks" AREN'T pit bulls. They could be mastiffs, staffies or even outrageous things like labradors. The issue is that the media doesn't CARE. Just as they don't care if it's a pretty water python or a "deadly brown snake"- a story is a story, and if it's something that identifies with most of the readers (ie, pit bull attack because most of the readers don't like pit bulls), then it'll grab some attention and more of a response.

A lot of people don't even know what a true pit bull looks like. How the hell is the government going to enforce a breed legislation when they can't even tell what's what?

 

[gemrock2hot]

I thought i might have put pics up of our girl but i didnt. i to could go on and on about this topic but at the end of the day there is no bad dogs only bad owners. so heres a couple of pics of our girl

this is when she was about 5 months
View attachment 220834
this is not long after we brought her home
View attachment 220835
and this is the most recent
View attachment 220836
here is her mum and big bro
View attachment 220837

 

[HissFits]

I am truly a dog lover, but I disagree with you about this. The thing is, even while you might have a perfectly calm dog, it doesn't mean she is a bad breed. By your descriptions, your dog is stable and you have been a responsible owner. However, pit bulls are still a problem breed. If you look up pit bull attack, you would find hundreds of sickening stories. Meanwhile, if you looked up "Border Collie attack" you would maybe find one or two, which did not result in death. Whippet attack would probably show no results. As you can see, some dog breeds are more dangerous than others, so why are we taking the risk, by allowing anybody to purchase any dogs? Pit bulls, bull terriers etc. should simply be banned.

Lion, so using your theory, any animal which is potentially more dangerous should not be aloud to be kept?? Ok so there goes herp keepers having venomous snakes, because they are a lot more dangerous than pythons. Also any big dogs should be banned, German shepards, rotties, dobermans, labs - yeah no more seeing eye dogs lol.
Its clearly not about an animal, its how it is treated and exposed to the public. The other month some drop kick left a death adder in a cardboard box at a police officers house - so should we now assume that all people with venomous snakes would do the same??
I have two American Staffies, my male looks like a pitbull, however they are both purebreds and have papers. The other day i had a man try kick my dog because it walked too close to him (lucky for him he missed or right now i would probably be locked up lol). When we take them to dog parks to socialise them with other dogs people wont allow their dogs to play with ours out of fear. This is what the papers and news reports are causing. It is important to socialise ALL dogs however because of a perceived threat this is something we struggle with.
My dogs play with my son (8), and all his friends, they are terrible guard dogs, anyone could walk stragiht into our back yard and they would just wag their tails (yes this has happened with complete strangers) and are the most loving dogs i have ever owned (ive had german shepards, alaskan malamutes and jack russels) and i would trust them to protect my partner and our son while im away(i go away for 6months at a time and therefore want a big dog that can protect my family in the worst case scenario).
Grim is right, we need better control. But throwing a blanket breed specific legislation doesnt do it correctly. A dog which is a loving pet should not have to be kept in the under the same conditions as one used for pig hunting, or that has been declared as a dangerous dog!

 

[Becky27]

If society declares any one breed as 'dangerous' or try to ban a particular breed, where would it stop? Eventually, almost every dog would have, at very least, some sort of restriction placed upon them. Unfortunately, the many breeds of working dogs used on farms, account for the majority of injuries, that would then in turn put the focus on other professional working dogs, shepards, labs, spaniels, hounds, etc.
Just because an attck isn't fatal, doesn't make it any less serious.

The point I think i'm trying to make, is that no one breed is any worse than the next.

If you own a dog, regardless of the breed, it is YOUR responsibility to socialize them appropriately. Also, if you have a nervous or snappy dog, it's YOUR responsibility to take the necessary steps to avoid an unwanted incident.

Blaming a dog for a natural response to a situation, is just an excuse for human ignorance.

BAN THE DEED (or the idiot owner) NOT THE BREED!! :-D

 

[JackTar]

Look I'm going to be honest here and declare I haven't read the whole thread because well it's bloody massive so sorry if I am just repeating someone else.

My opinion is that we need to get rid of the types of dogs which have been historicaly used for fighting or as guard dogs full stop. I am more than well aware that it is not the dogs fault it is entirely the owners however let's be honest with ourselves and call a spade a spade, these dogs are deadshit magnets. Bogans absolutely love them because they are a wang extension.

The other problem with these breeds is that a lot of people want a dog that is a guard dog and a pet, well I'm sorry it is one or the other you can't have both.

 

[Firedrake]

Well looks like we'd be getting rid of the whole canine race, seeing as dogs were used for either hunting, guarding or working livestock. Being loyal companions was a priority in all these jobs and should an owner wish to exploit this trait by dog fighting or bull baiting for 'entertainment' the dog would do it. How about instead of killing the millions of innocent dogs, we grade the humans on suitability to own one? Good breeders already do this before selling a pup, if they don't think your reason for owning one of their babies is a good one, they just won't sell it to you. Maybe if we stop trying to blame someone for everything and just try to fix the problem without resorting to genocide when something goes wrong the world could quite possibly be a better place for everyone. (That doesn't just apply for dogs either)

 

[Vixen]

The other problem with these breeds is that a lot of people want a dog that is a guard dog and a pet, well I'm sorry it is one or the other you can't have both.

I'll disagree with that one, one of the main reasons a guard dog will be so good at his job is that he has such love for his family and 'pack', he can and will certainly still be a good pet? Take Bullmastiff's for example, they are one of the best family dogs, very gentle and very good with kids and generally other people and pets too. However become hostile to one of his family and that will quickly change, they have a tendency to put there bodies between you and a threat, and would rather throw there weight around than bite.

I'm sure anyone that has ever owned a German Shepherd will say the same thing, they are great family dogs, and natural protectors. They don't need to be officially 'trained' to be a guard dog to make a good protector.

 

[JackTar]

I'm not suggesting we kill them all, just not allow more to be bred. I know checks and balances with owners is the right thing to do but it is not always about the right thing is it? We don't have the resources/manpower for something as monumental as that we need to balance this out and use common sense.

 

[Firedrake]

So once all of them die out we suddenly move on to another breed to slowly weed out of existance? And exactly what is the unemployment rate out where you live? I'm pretty sure there is more than enough manpower, just not enough bosses willing to fork out for all the new workers...

 

[Slinkstar]

In the '70's they blamed dobermans, in the '80's they blamed the German shepherds, in the '90's the blamed the rottweiler. Now they blame the pit bull. When will they blame the humans? - Cesar Millan and i totally agree with that quote being a owner of a male pitty x and a proud owner at that too, the reason i think pitty's get a bad rap is cause of media be it the news, movies, and music videos but the main reason is the muppets that fear and do not understand larger dogs, there is a doco out there called "Off the Chain" (might find it on ebay) but it gives you the whole history of the APBT form how the breed start to the present day and it is full of great facts and some really bad ones like the whole dog fighting part of it. But it gives you a real understanding on the breed and that alot of larger dogs are misunderstand and it's easy to blame a big dog when a little toy dog for an attack on someone and i agree with the saying BLAME THE DEED NOT THE BREED !!!!

 

[KaotikJezta]

I'm not suggesting we kill them all, just not allow more to be bred. I know checks and balances with owners is the right thing to do but it is not always about the right thing is it? We don't have the resources/manpower for something as monumental as that we need to balance this out and use common sense.

If you look at council regulations, it is not just pitbulls that are not going to be bred. Frankston council for example insists a dog is desexed before it is three months old unless you are a memeber of vicdogs, an organisation that is totally private and has no relationship to official purebred dog associations, so a lot of registered breeders wont sell to people in that municipality and a lot of vets refuse to desex until 6 months. The reason they give for this is it stops puppy farms and over population, but puppy farms are thriving with council permits under the guise of "Registered Companion Animal Breeders" and "The Lost Dogs Home" has an up to 70% kill rate and makes little to no attempt to rehome dogs, in fact they have been taken to court numerous times for not notifying owners and destroying microchipped dogs and for destroying before the 8 day cut off. It is a systematic push, being lobbied by anti-companion animal 'welfare' groups, to stop people having pets. You only have to look at how the reptile community is being affected by the lobbying of wildlife departments for mandatory enclosure size etc. It is easy to start with big breeds that people perceive as a threat and meanwhile we have our idiotic Prime Minister being given a $1500 dog from one of the most notorious puppy farms in the country for her birthday. It is all a bureaucratic farce. Some of you may have read my recent thread on what is happening to my dog, I had the ranger state it looked like it had pitbull in it yet by there own standards my dog is a) too large, b) white and it states they are NEVER white and c) the wrong shape. That also shows how ridiculous there standards are, they don't even know what they are looking for. If we allow them to ban one breed it will not stop.

 

[Jeffa]

Blah,blah,blah, do you relise that this post just keeps going round and round?

Honestly if this much passion and whinging is on a public Reptile forum, I wonder how much energy could be spent orgainising petitions and making info generally available to the public about the facts of these animals. Has anyone contacted their local government to discuss facts or are we all happy to continue to keep on riding the boring merry go round?

 

[KaotikJezta]

Yes, some of us have written to government, attended meetings, signed and made petitions etc. There are plenty of people giving up there time to try and educate the public but a public whipped into a frenzy by government and media fear campaigns is not easy to educate.

 

[thelionking]

Lion, so using your theory, any animal which is potentially more dangerous should not be aloud to be kept?? Ok so there goes herp keepers having venomous snakes, because they are a lot more dangerous than pythons. Also any big dogs should be banned, German shepards, rotties, dobermans, labs - yeah no more seeing eye dogs lol.
Its clearly not about an animal, its how it is treated and exposed to the public. The other month some drop kick left a death adder in a cardboard box at a police officers house - so should we now assume that all people with venomous snakes would do the same??
I have two American Staffies, my male looks like a pitbull, however they are both purebreds and have papers. The other day i had a man try kick my dog because it walked too close to him (lucky for him he missed or right now i would probably be locked up lol). When we take them to dog parks to socialise them with other dogs people wont allow their dogs to play with ours out of fear. This is what the papers and news reports are causing. It is important to socialise ALL dogs however because of a perceived threat this is something we struggle with.
My dogs play with my son (8), and all his friends, they are terrible guard dogs, anyone could walk stragiht into our back yard and they would just wag their tails (yes this has happened with complete strangers) and are the most loving dogs i have ever owned (ive had german shepards, alaskan malamutes and jack russels) and i would trust them to protect my partner and our son while im away(i go away for 6months at a time and therefore want a big dog that can protect my family in the worst case scenario).
Grim is right, we need better control. But throwing a blanket breed specific legislation doesnt do it correctly. A dog which is a loving pet should not have to be kept in the under the same conditions as one used for pig hunting, or that has been declared as a dangerous dog!

Those who keep venomous snakes are licensed, and they keep them in their own homes-so it's them taking their own risks. Dogs, however, come at everybody's risk-and it is a danger to the general public to keep such dogs. I am completely opposed to banning all big dogs. Just because a dog is big, it does not mean that it is dangerous. Labs are much more laid back than Staffies-Staffies are NOT big dogs. And they can make great pets, but only for those who know how to bring them up properly. If your dogs had bitten that man as a result of him kicking them, you should not have those dogs. People can kick dogs by accident to, and the general public should not have to fear off leash dogs. I certainly think rotties should be banned, as they too have a tendency to be extremely dangerous. Dobermans are also known to attack very often and easily-same with German Shepherds. Border Collies, however, still attack but much more rarely, and I have never heard of a fatal event in which this has occured. St Bernards are loyal, HUGE and don't have aggression tendencies. You can't deny that some dogs are more dangerous than others.

I'd like to add this link:
http://americaagainstbsl.tripod.com/fatal_dog_attacks.html
Take a look at the percentage of Pit Bulls, Am Staffs and Rotweillers in this fatal dog attacks list. If it's not the breed, why are there so many pit bull attacks which have resulted in death?

 

[Firedrake]

Because the media and most online statistics label anything they can't identify, most crosses and anything that looks like a 'fighting dog' a pit bull...
The reason these dogs attack can simply be a 'correction' by the dog, because it sees itself as alpha. But because humans and human children are so much squishier than another of the canine race, it doesn't always end well. If you look at those statistics, most are either unsupervised children, or chained dogs, meaning the one who was killed would have had to have been close enough to be bitten.

Attacks over 6 years '94-'99

28 rotties- 9 guard dogs, 8 unsupervised kids, 5 loose, 5 chained, 1 family dog
6 pit bulls- 1 mum threw baby to dogs, 2 loose, 1 owner away, 1 family dog, 1 newly aquired
8 pit bull types- 3 unsupervised, 2 loose, 1 feeding, 1 family dog, 1 aggressive because of owner, 1 protecting his dog
16 mixed breeds- 3 loose, 8 family dogs, 1 newly aquired, 2 unsupervised, 2 chained


Over 2 years '01-'02

9 rotties- 2 infant death, 2 got loose, 2 unsupervised, 2 family dogs, 1 chained
8 pit bulls- 5 chained, 1 guard, 1 loose, 1 owner possibly had seizure
4 mixed breeds- 2 chained, 1 loose, 1 infant death


Looks to me like humans are more to blame than the dogs

Over all:
15 unsupervised
15 chained (which means they had to be close enough to get bitten)
14 loose
13 family dogs
9 guards
8 misc
3 infant deaths

 

[thelionking]

Because the media and most online statistics label anything they can't identify, most crosses and anything that looks like a 'fighting dog' a pit bull...
The reason these dogs attack can simply be a 'correction' by the dog, because it sees itself as alpha. But because humans and human children are so much squishier than another of the canine race, it doesn't always end well. If you look at those statistics, most are either unsupervised children, or chained dogs, meaning the one who was killed would have had to have been close enough to be bitten.

Attacks over 6 years '94-'99

28 rotties- 9 guard dogs, 8 unsupervised kids, 5 loose, 5 chained, 1 family dog
6 pit bulls- 1 mum threw baby to dogs, 2 loose, 1 owner away, 1 family dog, 1 newly aquired
8 pit bull types- 3 unsupervised, 2 loose, 1 feeding, 1 family dog, 1 aggressive because of owner, 1 protecting his dog
16 mixed breeds- 3 loose, 8 family dogs, 1 newly aquired, 2 unsupervised, 2 chained


Over 2 years '01-'02

9 rotties- 2 infant death, 2 got loose, 2 unsupervised, 2 family dogs, 1 chained
8 pit bulls- 5 chained, 1 guard, 1 loose, 1 owner possibly had seizure
4 mixed breeds- 2 chained, 1 loose, 1 infant death


Looks to me like humans are more to blame than the dogs

Over all:
15 unsupervised
15 chained (which means they had to be close enough to get bitten)
14 loose
13 family dogs
9 guards
8 misc
3 infant deaths

The reason for why they killed the human does not apply. Because when you look at the big picture, those people died, because the government is not responsible enough to ban a dangerous breed. Pit Bulls are more dominant, and therefore more likely to be aggressive. This makes them dangerous dogs. If they were more fearful than most dogs, they would also have an aggressive tendency, and the results would be the same.
My point is, the reason does not matter. The breed is likely to be dangerous-whatever the reason-so why do we pursue the breeding of it? And even more so for Rotties.

 

[Firedrake]

The reason matters entirely. The fact that most were unsupervised or chained means that nobody actually knows what happened, and it is the responsibility of the parents or guardians to be watching. The breed is not 'likely' to be dangerous, there are probably a ton more bully breeds or Rotties in homes not attacking people that we never hear about. We never hear about every dog that doesn't attack someone, the unregistered dogs that aren't recorded in the statistics or the little-dog attacks that nobody reports because its 'cute' when they show aggression. The only reasons any breed would be more dangerous than another are simply lack of control and dominance by the owners, lack of awareness by strangers, size and temperament of an individual animal.
I still think the humans looking for a dog should be evaluated on their ability to train and maintain the breed they've picked. They should show a knowledge of the breed, the risks involved in owning one, the mental stability to discipline, train and maintain alpha postion if the breed is a dominating one and the income to give the dog at least a decent feed every day and a place to sleep.

As to persuing the breeding of these dogs, it's the exact same as people wanting to breed those stupid fluffy yap dogs. I think 'why would anyone want one of those?' It's personal preference. I'm buying a pure Amstaff, because I like the breed, the look, the laid back attitude with the ability to still protect me and my family if need be. Some people would say 'but they're vicious pit bulls why would you get one of those?' Because I don't like fluffy yap dogs or energetic herding dogs. So until you stop letting people pick their preferences, you'll never get rid of these types of dogs.

On top of that, there are more mixed breed 'family dogs' attacking than 'family dogs' of the breeds you're tring to ban...The rest are doing their jobs (guarding) or are roaming or unsupervised, for which the owner should be entirely responsible.