Dog attack article in Herald, 10th June.

crotalus667

stupidusername wrote: »

Another child 'mauled' by a dog in the news today.

I've just had a look for an article, but can't find any! I saw it on tv3 news @ 5.30.

http://www.tv3.ie/videos.php?video=23732&locID=1.2.

That guy from the cspca is an idiot
:mad:

mosi

While it is terrible for the child, I don't see how the owners of the dog can be viewed as being irresponsible, as the dog was securely enclosed in their garden. I imagine that the ball going into the property excited or disturbed him in some way, and then he was faced with an intruder. The dog certainly should not have been pts for this-in essence the dog was provoked.
It really irks me that dogs are arbitrarily put down when they bite. My neighbours elderly, half blind JRT was put down after he bit the postman. I also recall a time when my parents were looking to rehome a dog from the pound. A woman came in with a little terrier to be pts, saying that the dog had "bit the baby". My parents would have taken this dog, but as he was accused of biting, he wans't allowed to be rehomed. Now, some may say fair enough. However, the dog warden told them that this woman had brought dogs in under the same circumstances before.
I do appreciate that there are some genuinely dangerous dogs (am referring to individuals, not breeds here) around. However, I think that individual circumstances really should be taken into account when bites occur.

Graces7

There seems to be utter hysteria sometimes?

Our rescued collie had apparently once "bitten" a neighbour where she was before. She had actually nipped her ankle, sheepdog style s she was totally untrained.

There is a huge difference between a nip and a bite; a dog that means to bite will tear to the bone. A nip is simpy a warning and if the person responds badly?

But we heard "bite",. Apparently she pierced the skin; but seeing how the lady reacted around her?

We had an intruder here a week or so ago; collie and JRT Cross of course tried to see him off. Never one attempt to bite as they were under control. The man, backed up against the gate, was terrified and kept waving his arms, which threatened the collie even more.

A postman can and should refuse to deliver at any house where there is a dog like that; our mailbox is outside the gate; so they bark at him..

ppink

crotalus667 wrote: »

http://www.tv3.ie/videos.php?video=23732&locID=1.2.

That guy from the cspca is an idiot
:mad:

Initially when I saw it I thought exactly the same thing but then when I recall what happened to me, that is exactly what happened.....the dog,apparently a really lovely animal, just attacked for no apparent reason. i was not even near him, he came from a distance and grabbed me.

Ozziej

If a dog bit my child. I would demand it was put down and if not I would poison it/kill it myself. Dogs are animals for chrissake. I can't believe some of the comments here from people.

People anthropomorpholise their pets way too much especially if they are their only companions. I fail to see how with so many docile breeds that exist that anyone should be allowed to own a "Japanese fighting dog", Pitbull, Rotweiler etc. After all man created all the breeds of dogs by breeding and selection for certain tasks. Now that we are civilised and don't hunt down bears, elks and boar for food (which is what akita were designed for), why do we need these breeds?

I realise my comments may sound inflammatory to the readers of this forum but I don't understand why aggressive breed dogs should be legal to keep and would like someone to explain it to me?

toadfly

Ozziej wrote: »

If a dog bit my child. I would demand it was put down and if not I would poison it/kill it myself. Dogs are animals for chrissake. I can't believe some of the comments here from people.

This is the most ridiculous thing, its people like you that cause this kind of panic that ends in the poor dog being PTS.

The dog was in his own fully enclosed yard, the child stuck his hand into throgh the fence and its the dogs fault for protecting his home and owner? Explain that to me? The child should have been taught what not to do. Its the parents fault completely, not the dog or its owner. But as usually its the dog that suffers.

Idiotic parents are the cause of a lot of things wrong with the world today. :mad:

Dyr

Ozziej wrote: »

Now that we are civilised and don't hunt down bears, elks and boar for food (which is what akita were designed for), why do we need these breeds?

There's elk in japan now? Akita were bred for all sorts of roles, including the protection of kids, but don't you mind that lol

Why do people need kids? why do they need land rovers, why do they need fags and widescreen tellies? lets ban lots of stuff while we're at it

andreac

Ozziej wrote: »

If a dog bit my child. I would demand it was put down and if not I would poison it/kill it myself. Dogs are animals for chrissake. I can't believe some of the comments here from people.

People anthropomorpholise their pets way too much especially if they are their only companions. I fail to see how with so many docile breeds that exist that anyone should be allowed to own a "Japanese fighting dog", Pitbull, Rotweiler etc. After all man created all the breeds of dogs by breeding and selection for certain tasks. Now that we are civilised and don't hunt down bears, elks and boar for food (which is what akita were designed for), why do we need these breeds?

I realise my comments may sound inflammatory to the readers of this forum but I don't understand why aggressive breed dogs should be legal to keep and would like someone to explain it to me?

Its these types of narrow minded ignorant comments that make me so mad.:mad::mad:
You obv know nothing about dogs and certain breeds. These breeds are docile, i own one, a rottweiler and hes fantastic as hes been trained well and socialised properly. Please refrain from commenting on breeds you obv know nothing about in future.:rolleyes:

seamus

Ozziej wrote: »

People anthropomorpholise their pets way too much especially if they are their only companions.

People who don't live with animals tend to downplay the existence of emotion and intelligence in animals and consider them as inert and disposable as a pair of pants.

The fact of the matter is that higher animals, such as dogs and cats, do possess emotions, the ability to communicate with humans in a limited capacity and do become part of that person's family. Yes, some people do go too far and give them human standing, but many people ignore the fact that many mammals are distinct beings worthy of rights and a life and instead decide that they are commodities or property which can be treated like any other.

My point being that putting down a dog for a single bite is an anachronism which belongs in the 17th century when they used to put animals on trial. There is absolutely no benefit to society in putting down a dog for a single dog bite - the punishment is lost on other dogs (obviously) and it does absolutely nothing to make people safer around dogs. All it actually does is kill someone's family member because of an accident.

Dogs which have displayed a pattern of aggression and which cannot be homed safely unfortunately have to be put down, but a dog which lashes out once is no more dangerous than a man who gets into a fight in a pub.

I don't understand why aggressive breed dogs

There's no such thing as an aggressive breed dog. That's probably why you don't understand.

Dogs are all the same species. They can interbreed freely and mostly suffer from the same illnesses. The difference between dog breeds in reality is equivalent to the differences between human breeds - i.e. White, Black, Asian, etc.

There is absolutely no doubting that, exactly the same as in humans, different breeds have different traits, despite being part of the same species. Yet exactly the same as with humans there is no basis for claiming that one breed is inherently more dangerous/smart/docile/etc than another breed. A particular breed can show a tendency towards a particular trait (again, just like in humans) but there's no hard and fast rule that all pit bulls are vicious in exactly the same way that you cannot claim that "White men can't jump".

The fact of the matter is that the restricted breed legislation has no basis in fact and is a list of dogs compiled on the basis of populism and fearmongering. There are many, many dogs who are equally as "dangerous" as those on the restricted breeds list but who don't appear on the list because the media hasn't decided to demonise them. In fact all dogs are equally at risk of attacking as those on the restricted breeds list.

DBCyc

Ozziej wrote: »

I realise my comments may sound inflammatory to the readers of this forum but I don't understand why aggressive breed dogs should be legal to keep and would like someone to explain it to me?

I'll explain it - as Seamus has pointed out, there is no such thing as an agressive breed of dog

adser53

crotalus667 wrote: »

http://www.tv3.ie/videos.php?video=23732&locID=1.2.

That guy from the cspca is an idiot
:mad:

I agree, pluse the news called it the "Dangerous Dog Act", I guess I missed the earlier news bulletin where it was announced that Cork was invaded by England and subjected to it's laws cos we here in Ireland have the "Control of Dogs Act", "not the dangerous dogs act"

Ozziej wrote: »

If a dog bit my child. I would demand it was put down and if not I would poison it/kill it myself. Dogs are animals for chrissake. I can't believe some of the comments here from people.

People anthropomorpholise their pets way too much especially if they are their only companions. I fail to see how with so many docile breeds that exist that anyone should be allowed to own a "Japanese fighting dog", Pitbull, Rotweiler etc. After all man created all the breeds of dogs by breeding and selection for certain tasks. Now that we are civilised and don't hunt down bears, elks and boar for food (which is what akita were designed for), why do we need these breeds?

I realise my comments may sound inflammatory to the readers of this forum but I don't understand why aggressive breed dogs should be legal to keep and would like someone to explain it to me?

You obviously know nothing about these breeds and as a dog owner, I'll tell you out straight that my dogs aren't just mere companions. They are a part of my family and that's not anthropomorphising. There also aren't "Agressive Breeds", this again gives further proof to the fact that you havn't got a clue. The akita's were not "designed" for hunting OR fighing. In fact, every dog from the Akita region in Japan was known as an Akita before they set out a breed standard and started breeding the akita as we know it around the 1900's. These akitas were worth so much that they were never used for fighting and rarely for hunting.

Using your arguement, almost every dog has a sinister (woooooo) reason for coming into existence in the first place. For example, JRT's were initially bred for hunting... Jesus we better ban them too and every other dog that wasn't bred for appearance and to be a lap dog.

The incident involving the Akita in the herald was a horrible accident but to expect ANY dog owner to make their property airtight is ridiculous. My garden is as airtight as it gets, block walls on 3 sides, solid timber fencing on the last. I have a solid timber gate with a slide bolt & padlock on the inside so to open it from the outside, I have to put my hand through a hole the size of a tennis ball. A child could do this too and if, god forbid, they got bitten, would that be my fault for having my dogs unsecured? The child should have been supervised and told not to go near other peoples property or strange dogs. End of story. It's a horrific thing to happen but you can't place all the blame on the dog. And for the record, I'm not saying what the dog did was acceptable or right, I just don't think the hysteria is justified when IMO the child was more at fault.

As for the instance in Cork, it's an open and shut case unfortunatly of a loose dog but again, I don't put this down to the breed. I put it down to the owner who didn't have the dog secured.

bernard0368

Dogs can and sometimes will bite when they feel threatened or scared.

Children can do stupid things without thinking.

Owners need to train both.

Ozziej

Some interesting points with some patronising jibes which I'd expect from people who have an interest in pets and feel threatened.
Dogs may have primitive emotions like fear and respect but I stand by comment that pet owners project their own feelings onto them. No evidence of anything else as they can't let you know what level of consiousness they have.Much of issues of pets on those TV programs seem to be based on people treating dogs like humans instead of treating them like animals.

I am disappointed by the inference earlier in the thread that council estate children deserved their dog bites though. I will stand by my point that if any dog bites a child it should be destroyed. I have a 2 year old and I have to pick her up when the neighbour's Pom is outside as it has snapped at children on the road without any provocation (I have seen it personally). The owner laughs and says "Teddy" hates children and its a Pom trait. If that animal ever harms my daughter I would act accordingly.

Well the Akita reference is from Wikipedia and I assumed it was on the record. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akita_Inu Elks are common in America and there are Japanese and American Akita.

But I digress.The fact is certain breeds or dog do more damage when they attack children and statistically attack and maim children more than other dog breeds. I agree there is tabloid hysteria but as I've said if you are a parent of a small child and it is scarred for life from someone's pet pitbull you may reconsider your opinion. I don't believe society should be pandering to whines of people who whinge that Rover must have been provoked and their Rotweiller sleeps with their baby.

Maybe I'll get a baby panther as they look so cute and I've heard they are very intelligent;)

run_Forrest_run

bernard0368 wrote: »

Dogs can and sometimes will bite when they feel threatened or scared.

Children can do stupid things without thinking.

Owners need to train both.

yeah, my baby son came off his lead again yesterday and annoyed a dog, really, I must train my child better..and get a stronger lead...yes, my comment sounds as dumb as yours :rolleyes:

MagicSean

Ozziej wrote: »

If a dog bit my child. I would demand it was put down and if not I would poison it/kill it myself. Dogs are animals for chrissake. I can't believe some of the comments here from people.

People anthropomorpholise their pets way too much especially if they are their only companions. I fail to see how with so many docile breeds that exist that anyone should be allowed to own a "Japanese fighting dog", Pitbull, Rotweiler etc. After all man created all the breeds of dogs by breeding and selection for certain tasks. Now that we are civilised and don't hunt down bears, elks and boar for food (which is what akita were designed for), why do we need these breeds?

I realise my comments may sound inflammatory to the readers of this forum but I don't understand why aggressive breed dogs should be legal to keep and would like someone to explain it to me?

Ridiculous. In my experience pomeranians and poodles are much more vicious than my doberman. It's all down to the owner and the training.

morganafay

crotalus667 wrote: »

http://www.tv3.ie/videos.php?video=23732&locID=1.2.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was a Rottie used for dog fighting or at least trained to be aggressive. I've seen a lot of Rottweilers/Staffies/Greyhounds around there but none ever muzzled . . . not saying they should be muzzled neccessarily, but it's kinda weird to see so many RB dogs

seamus

Ozziej wrote: »

Dogs may have primitive emotions like fear and respect

"Respect" is primitive? OK, that may just be a bad choice of words.

No evidence of anything else as they can't let you know what level of consiousness they have.

Just like someone in a coma, right? My point being that just because you personally cannot see it, doesn't mean that it hasn't been tested or otherwise doesn't exist.

Much of issues of pets on those TV programs seem to be based on people treating dogs like humans instead of treating them like animals.

Absolutely agreed. Just like children will have issues if you try to treat them like adults, dogs will have issues if you try to treat them like humans.

But I digress.The fact is certain breeds or dog do more damage when they attack children and statistically attack and maim children more than other dog breeds.

Links? Stats? Why children specifically? Do children taste better?
Look, there is very little basis behind this "breed" nonsense. I'm going to trundle out my usual argument here:

A Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a dog on the restricted breed list. It usually weighs somewhere between 2 and 4 stone, and stands between 18 and 36 inches tall. They're considered a small-medium breed, but are strong - they've been bred to be strong and resilient. In an attack on an adult, a staffie can do a lot of damage - they have strong jaws which will remove a few fingers and if they managed to catch you right on the neck, they could kill you, but that is very rare. A full grown adult human will sustain injuries in a Staffie attack but will likely be able to fend off the attack and will definitely be able to fend it off with assistance.

A St. Bernard is a dog not the restricted breeds list. It weighs between 12 and 17 stone and stands usually 48 to 60 inches tall. In an attack on an adult, a St. Bernard is capable of pinning the person down and carrying out a sustained and prolonged attack while the victim will be incapable of mounting any kind of effective defence because the dog weighs at least as much as they do. Even with assistance, a person would have extreme difficulty fighting off an insane St. Bernard. If you don't die from your injuries, you're likely to be left severely scarred and disabled.

Both breeds are equally likely to carry out an attack - they're dogs and dogs attack for whatever reasons - but very rarely. But these are just two breeds. All breeds are capable of causing damage in an attack and all breeds are capable of killing a child if they get an unlucky strike - even a Chihuahua.

So why ban particular breeds? That's the human equivalent of making it illegal to be black because black people commit more crime in America (which is a statistical fact). It fails to address the reason why particular breeds have a reputation for being vicious, and more importantly it doesn't address the human factor behind it - laws are supposed to be about people - so why does the law punish the animal and not the human behind the animal? When you've banned Rottweilers and eliminated the breed, what will stop dog fighters from taking St. Bernards and turning them into fighting dogs? If you ban one dog you have to ban them all because they can all be turned into "pit bulls".

I don't believe society should be pandering to whines of people who whinge that Rover must have been provoked and their Rotweiller sleeps with their baby.

We also shouldn't be pandering to a media who actively ignore attacks by any dogs who aren't "vicious pit bulls" and only choose to report attacks that can sell papers.

DBCyc

Ozziej wrote: »

I agree there is tabloid hysteria but as I've said if you are a parent of a small child and it is scarred for life from someone's pet <insert any breed here> you may reconsider your opinion.

fyp, but the media are only interested in reporting on incidents involving certain breeds.

Edit: ah seamus beat me to it again

toadfly

TillyGirl wrote: »

The dog was in his own fully enclosed yard, the child stuck his hand into throgh the fence and its the dogs fault for protecting his home and owner? Explain that to me?

You never answered my question, how is it the dogs fault that child wasnt taught basic manners and common sense not to put any part of his body in someone elses garden? Parents fault 100%.

Ozziej wrote: »

I have a 2 year old and I have to pick her up when the neighbour's Pom is outside as it has snapped at children on the road without any provocation (I have seen it personally).

Thats a different situation. That dog is outside and not under control. The dog that was PTS was in his own fully enclosed garden. He was protecting his home. You are giving your child an irrational fear of dogs if you pick her up everytime a dog comes near her. Great way to bring up a child :rolleyes:

morganafay

Ozziej wrote: »

I realise my comments may sound inflammatory to the readers of this forum but I don't understand why aggressive breed dogs should be legal to keep and would like someone to explain it to me?

I would have said the same thing before, why get a potentially dangerous dog when you could get a nice almost-guaranteed-to-be-friendly dog?

But now I've kinda realised, the dog is a dog first of all, and then a breed secondly. All dogs are very similar genetically, no matter what breed. All dogs could be dangerous . . . and not all "dangerous" breeds are neccessarily aggressive.

Though I do think all breeds have different expected temperaments and some dogs are more likely to be aggressive than others. Some are just more likely to be snappy (some terriers) but are not really dangerous because they're small. Some are just highly intelligent (GSDs, collies) and for that reason can be aggressive sometimes, or because of fear. Some are just very powerful so can do a lot more damage than small dogs. Some dogs are extremely friendly and very unlikely to be aggressive.

Personally I would never want a breed that was known for being aggressive, when I could just get a breed that is known for being very friendly and not aggressive. But just because I don't want one doesn't mean nobody else should.

But these "dangerous" breeds must have some good characteristics that people love the breeds and want to get them, and they have every right to if they'll socialise and raise the dog well so it'll be friendly. Staffies must be brilliant dogs the way people here talk about them. I don't know them, but there must be something great about them.

I know what it's like when you really love a certain breed of dog and can't live without them. I like gundogs personally, and small companion dogs just bred to be friendly. I'd love a greyhound though one day. But if someone loves a RB dog, then that's why they want them.

morganafay

TillyGirl wrote: »

Thats a different situation. That dog is outside and not under control. The dog that was PTS was in his own fully enclosed garden. He was protecting his home. You are giving your child an irrational fear of dogs if you pick her up everytime a dog comes near her. Great way to bring up a child :rolleyes:

To be fair, they didn't say they pick up the child when any dog is near, just the one that's known for snapping.

toadfly

morganafay wrote: »

To be fair, they didn't say they pick up the child when any dog is near, just the one that's known for snapping.

I bet they do:p

Grumpypants

Hermit07 wrote: »

I am a mother myself and I can tell you hell has no fury if this was to happen to my child.

This kind of comment drives me nuts, its everyone elses fault. If the mother cared that much about her kids she wouldnt leave them alone playing next to dangerous animals.

Graces7

Grumpypants wrote: »

This kind of comment drives me nuts, its everyone elses fault. If the mother cared that much about her kids she wouldnt leave them alone playing next to dangerous animals.

She wouldn't leave them alone playing - period.

morganafay

Grumpypants wrote: »

This kind of comment drives me nuts, its everyone elses fault. If the mother cared that much about her kids she wouldnt leave them alone playing next to dangerous animals.

Exactly. It wasn't the dog's fault or the owner's fault. Ok the dog shouldn't have bitten, maybe the dog was just confused or something, either way it was in it's own garden. The mother clearly wasn't watching the child, or wasn't even there when it happened.

She's lucky the kid wasn't hurt more, or kidnapped, or murdered, or hit by a car . . .

Grumpypants

Ozziej wrote: »

If a dog bit my child. I would demand it was put down and if not I would poison it/kill it myself. Dogs are animals for chrissake. I can't believe some of the comments here from people.

People anthropomorpholise their pets way too much especially if they are their only companions. I fail to see how with so many docile breeds that exist that anyone should be allowed to own a "Japanese fighting dog", Pitbull, Rotweiler etc. After all man created all the breeds of dogs by breeding and selection for certain tasks. Now that we are civilised and don't hunt down bears, elks and boar for food (which is what akita were designed for), why do we need these breeds?

I realise my comments may sound inflammatory to the readers of this forum but I don't understand why aggressive breed dogs should be legal to keep and would like someone to explain it to me?

If it was a Dog on the loose bitting people all the time then yes i would agree with it being put down, or at least relocated to a security job.

But if a dog that is properly secured and your child comes along and because you haven't bothered to teach them properly and because you left them alone to play next to a dangerous animal i fail to see how this is anyones fault but yours.

By the way you dont have dangerous breeds you rarely even have dangerous dogs you have dogs that have not been trained properly by lazy owners.

Neighbour of mine has a Rotweiler he is one of the biggest Rotweilers ive ever seen, huge and he is the happiest big dope of a dog ive ever met.

kdave

Discostuy wrote: »

I dont get what you expect to be done? Ban all dogs in the country in case some kids have their hands bitten?.
The owner of the dog did nothing wrong either, the dog wasn't loose roaming the streets. It was fenced in on private property, and licenced. Fairly responsible if you ask me.

The dog reacted to a strange looking arm coming through the fence...for all the dog knew it could have been some weird snake coming to attack him.

You expect people to only keep dogs that would never bite. Its never going to happen. All animals (as with people) have instincts and breaking points. Thats not something you can breed out of a dog.

I'm sorry, but as someone who was biten myself (twice badly) as a child, learned my lesson not to go onto private property. My parents didnt seek to have any dogs put down, and i'm glad they didnt. It was my fault, not the dogs.

Ye I was bitten as a child as well just when i was walking down the street and in my view who cares it is just a stupid bite what message is it for animal rights, to dispose of a dog because over such a small incident,were going backward not foreward on animal rights,everyone is just so oversensitive over a stupid bite,it happened to me in around 1994 or 1995 so it was not a million years ago, how times have changed in 2010

ISDW

morganafay wrote: »

I would have said the same thing before, why get a potentially dangerous dog when you could get a nice almost-guaranteed-to-be-friendly dog?

But now I've kinda realised, the dog is a dog first of all, and then a breed secondly. All dogs are very similar genetically, no matter what breed. All dogs could be dangerous . . . and not all "dangerous" breeds are neccessarily aggressive.

Though I do think all breeds have different expected temperaments and some dogs are more likely to be aggressive than others. Some are just more likely to be snappy (some terriers) but are not really dangerous because they're small. Some are just highly intelligent (GSDs, collies) and for that reason can be aggressive sometimes, or because of fear. Some are just very powerful so can do a lot more damage than small dogs. Some dogs are extremely friendly and very unlikely to be aggressive.

Personally I would never want a breed that was known for being aggressive, when I could just get a breed that is known for being very friendly and not aggressive. But just because I don't want one doesn't mean nobody else should.

But these "dangerous" breeds must have some good characteristics that people love the breeds and want to get them, and they have every right to if they'll socialise and raise the dog well so it'll be friendly. Staffies must be brilliant dogs the way people here talk about them. I don't know them, but there must be something great about them.

I know what it's like when you really love a certain breed of dog and can't live without them. I like gundogs personally, and small companion dogs just bred to be friendly. I'd love a greyhound though one day. But if someone loves a RB dog, then that's why they want them.

What breed is known for being aggressive? Staffs were bred to fight other dogs, not humans, so they were bred not to bite people.

If you go to a good breeder, all of their dogs will be bred to be friendly, its when you go to a byb or a puppy farmer that you get issues. A dog from a reputable breeder that has been socialised properly will be friendly. What breed of dog would you say has been bred to be friendly? A lovely floppy eared golden retriever possibly? Who statistically bites more humans per year than any rottie or staffie or GSD.

There are no dangerous breeds, only dangerous breeders and dangerous owners and it is not usually them unfortunately who pay the price for it. It is the kids who are out playing, or the adult walking past their property, or the dog on the lead with the responsible dog owner. Just like its not usually the drunk driver that gets killed, its the other people around them. Stop buying puppies from bybs and puppy farmers and we might start to get somewhere.

Sittingpretty

Ozziej wrote: »

But I digress.The fact is certain breeds or dog do more damage when they attack children and statistically attack and maim children more than other dog breeds.

Really? REALLY? Where'd you get this information from. I'd be genuinely interested to know what publication or website you got this gem of a "fact" from?

morganafay

ISDW wrote: »

What breed is known for being aggressive? Staffs were bred to fight other dogs, not humans, so they were bred not to bite people.

I don't mean staffies, more like some breeds are known to sometimes be a bit snappy, or to be more likely to be aggressive than others I should say. I know all breeds or nearly all breeds can be aggressive.

I'm not going to go by what people say, but what I've experienced myself. And I've met agggressive GSDs, collies, terriers, various toy breeds, cross breeds, etc. but personally I've never met an aggressive Golden Retriever, for example. I'm sure they could be aggressive though . . .

Are GR's really statistically more likely to bite? I heard that about labs before but not GR's. That does surprise me because every GR I've met has been extremely friendly.

I'm just going to go by what I've found from meeting lots of dogs, if a larger percentage of one breed seem to be more aggressive, then I won't get that breed of dog. I'm not talking about restricted breeds, but all breeds.


And I wouldn't want a breed that is known for possibly being aggressive to other dogs too. I'd just avoid dogs bred for fighting just in case. That's just me being a bit overly cautious though because I have small animals and small dogs. I feel the same about hounds and terriers though, because they were bred for hunting I wouldn't really want one. (Though I'd love a greyhound, I'd have to be very careful with it if I did get one, cos I imagine most of them would be more inclined to kill rabbits than my Cavaliers, who don't really pay attention because they're a bit dumb!)


I really don't care what breed other people get as long as they are responsible about it. I like having dogs like Cavaliers because if I had a "dangerous" type dog then I'd have to put more effort into training the dog and stuff, but my Cavaliers are not really gonna be a danger, even if I'm not the greatest dog trainer. Does that make sense? I can't word it the way I want . . .

I think the most important thing about a dog, for me, is temperament, so I'm gonna get a dog with the temperament I like the most. And that is extremely friendly, good with other animals.

You know how some dogs are described as very loyal, or very brave, or something . . . I think that makes them more likely to possibly maybe be aggressive. But a dog like a Cavalier is just . . . like they'll walk up to strangers and not be smart enough to be scared, so they'll just be friendly, and that's the kind of dog I like. A dumb, friendly dog . . .