Dangerous Dogs.........

AudreyHepburn

Not sure if this is the right place for this thread so if not Mods please move!

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16194282

I’m curious as to people’s opinions on the keeping of dangerous dogs. The video above is from the UK but it clearly shows what some breeds of dog are capable of. In it a dog (a pit bull I think) attacks five police officers mauling them and from reports it badly injured two before Animal Welfare came and put it down. Apparently it had attacked other people previously and the owner’s neighbours had made several complaints about it.

My own opinion would be that you can ever completely domesticate any animal; their wild instincts always remain with them. I would never totally trust any dog, even my own gorgeous little man at home. He’s the most pleasant docile creature you could meet but I know that if he felt threatened he could turn dangerous in an instant. If for instance some-one tried to break-in to our house I have no doubt he’d make them regret, whether it would be about protecting himself, us, his patch I don’t know.

I acknowledge that there is an onus on the owner to ensure that the dog is trained as much as possible and to take all necessary precautions to protect the dog and those it comes into contact with. For example with my dog, we used to give him raw hide bones to chew on but we had to stop because he became quite territorial with them. If an owner is particularly abusive to his/her dog or breeds it for the purpose of fighting or guarding then obviously there is a greater danger that the animal could seriously hurt some-one or worse.

There are however some breeds of dog which, in my opinion, are far more predisposed to be aggressive than others (even when treated well and trained right) and with these, I’m not sure owning one is a good idea. Below is a list of the dogs which, in Ireland, are considered dangerous enough that strict precautions need to be taken with them. I personally wouldn’t even consider owning one.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0442.html

I’ve heard countless people who own one of the breeds listed say ‘ah sure he/she is a dote, he/she wouldn’t hurt a fly’ but I think that’s a foolhardy attitude. The reality is these are dangerous animals and need to be treated with caution, even if they have never shown any aggression.

Your opinions?

Sorry for the long post btw, I just couldn’t say all I wanted to say in a few lines!

Gevie Stee

I f you're a postman all dogs are dangerous

stephen_k

All breeds of dog can be dangerous if mistreated and untrained

Born to Die

Most of the danger with a lot of dogs is with the idiot attached to the other side of the leash.

Duggy747

Dogs are like children, you don't raise them good then they'll turn into vicious shìts.

Once had a Collie (The Lassie dog) bite me on the arse when I was a kid. The fùcker got a good amount of arse cheek in his gob, too.

Immaculate Pasta

Replace dangerous dogs teeth with strips of rubber :cool:

ScumLord

I think it's all a load of nonsense. Replace the word dog with human in the OP and your talking about killing off races because of the problems a few abused people/dogs are causing.

mikemac1

Scumbag dog means a scumbag owner

Duggy747 wrote: »

Once had a Collie (The Lassie dog) bite me on the arse when I was a kid. The fùcker got a good amount of arse cheek in his gob, too.

Collies herd, it's their instinct
That was your own fault, you were moving too slowly

deaddonkey

lol I love how one of the "dangerous dogs" is one the gardai use in search and rescue, drug detection and as a working police dog.

Man's best friend.

My own opinion would be that you can ever completely domesticate any animal; their wild instincts always remain with them

Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years. the clue is in the name; Domestic Dog. They are not wild animals. Don't talk poopy.

deaddonkey

http://www.dogchannel.com/dog-news/dog-news-archives/article2005-12-05a.aspx

BAN DANGEROUS LABRADORS!!!!1!

mikemac1

mikemac1 wrote: »

Scumbag dog means a scumbag owner

THIS!

The problem arises when irresponsible idiots own the dogs as status symbols and deliberately train them to be dangerous.

ppink

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

My own opinion would be that you can ever completely domesticate any animal; their wild instincts always remain with them.

Is a wild dogs instinct to attack all those people?

wexie

I wonder how long it will take for someone to point out to you (possibly quite forcibly) that nowhere in that document is the word dangerous mentioned.

Funny how I could have a 14 stone Caucasian Ovcharka that could use a pitbull to clean it's teeth but a rotty would have to be muzzled....

AudreyHepburn

ScumLord wrote: »

I think it's all a load of nonsense. Replace the word dog with human in the OP and your talking about killing off races because of the problems a few abused people/dogs are causing.

When or where did I ever advocate killing off an entire breed? If a dog attacks a person, yes it should be put down but otherwise you just need to take the proper precautions.

deaddonkey wrote: »

Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years. the clue is in the name; Domestic Dog. They are not wild animals. Don't talk poopy.

It's not 'poopy', it's just my opinion. I don't believe you can completely get rid of any animals wild instincts.

ppink wrote: »

Is a wild dogs instinct to attack all those people?

It's a wild dog's instinct to protect itself, to feed when it's starving, to defend it's territory. And if that means attacking and killing people it will do it.

I believe that instict is still there even in domestic dogs.

MagicSean

Op from the sounds of it you probably shouldn't have a dog either. Abusive owners aren't the only problem. Weak owners are just as bad and can raise equally aggressive dogs without even knowing it. And from the sounds of it you are much too passive and distrusting to own a dog.

I've owned many different breeds of dog and while each breed has a particular overriding instinct I have never known one breed to be more aggressive than another.

What's needed in this area is a properly legislated and enforced licensing system and proper resources and laws to prevent bad owners having dogs.

AudreyHepburn

wexie wrote: »

I wonder how long it will take for someone to point out to you (possibly quite forcibly) that nowhere in that document is the word dangerous mentioned.

Funny how I could have a 14 stone Caucasian Ovcharka that could use a pitbull to clean it's teeth but a rotty would have to be muzzled....

I know, but by advocating strick measures for owning the breeds mention, the inference is there imo.

seamus

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I know, but by advocating strick measures for owning the breeds mention, the inference is there imo.

Ironically this inference only serves to create the problem the legislation intended to avoid because it means that those who should never own any dog specifically target these breeds for ownership.
In the UK they completely banned a number of similar breeds of dog, and they found soon after that ownership figures for these animals went through the roof, along with the popularity of dog fighting. This caused them to do a rollback whereby an owner can apply to have the dog, but the legislation still creates the inference that these breeds are dangerous and encourages ownership by dangerous people, so they're considering lifting the ban completely.

We don't have a major issue with dog attacks in this country so we don't need legislation to deal with it. Our legislation was very much a "follow the leader" exercise after the UK introduced their legislation. There was little thought behind it and no real reason for it. None of the respected animal welfare groups in either jurisdiction support breed-specific legislation.

What we do have a major issue with is control of dogs in general, and although we have the legislation for it, we don't have the enforcement.

The only dangerous dogs I've ever come across are ones that are owned by scumbags. I heard a story recently that a bloke has been going around with his pitbull to parks in South Dublin getting him to attack other dogs to train him for dog fighting. Have heard of two dogs that have died due to their injuries from said attacks over the last year. Might all be hearsay that it's the same bloke but wouldn't surprise me with some of the stuff you hear on the news. Some people are just pure scum and they should be ones that should be put down. Stricter laws should be in place in both the Ireland and the UK for owning dogs of certain breeds. We've all heard of those terrible stories in the last 2 years in the UK of children that have been mauled to death by certain breeds. All cases they've found serious neglect to the animals before the attacks.

deaddonkey

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

When or where did I ever advocate killing off an entire breed? If a dog attacks a person, yes it should be put down but otherwise you just need to take the proper precautions.

You didn't. You advocated discrimination against breed based on your prejudices though. How about some races of people should be muzzled and locked up because your prejudices make you fear them?

Below is a list of the dogs which, in Ireland, are considered dangerous enough that strict precautions need to be taken with them.

So these dogs, which are not restricted in other countries, are only dangerous in Ireland? Why the difference?

The reality is these are dangerous animals and need to be treated with caution, even if they have never shown any aggression.

If you want to make accusations, provide the proof that every dog of every breed on that list is dangerous. Go right ahead. Prove it. It's reality, you said so yourself, prove that all these dogs are dangerous or take your statement back.

OP, you should never own a dog, because you are incapable of trusting them and will develop a dangerous animal, regardless of breed.

Sergeant

ScumLord wrote: »

I think it's all a load of nonsense. Replace the word dog with human in the OP and your talking about killing off races because of the problems a few abused people/dogs are causing.

Dogs aren't human though, and any comparison between killing off a species of dog and killing off a race of people is a spurious one.

Not that I'm advocating killing off a species of dog. As you say, the owner is often the problem.

AudreyHepburn

deaddonkey wrote: »

You didn't. You advocated discrimination against breed based on your prejudices though. How about some races of people should be muzzled and locked up because your prejudices make you fear them?

I have no such predjudaces against any group of people and I don't appreciate the accusation.

All I advocate is that people be a little more willing to accept that SOME dogs are more dangerous than others and need to be treated more cautiously.

So these dogs, which are not restricted in other countries, are only dangerous in Ireland? Why the difference?

No difference at all, nor did I say there was one. These breeds should be treated with caution everywhere.

If you want to make accusations, provide the proof that every dog of every breed on that list is dangerous. Go right ahead. Prove it. It's reality, you said so yourself, prove that all these dogs are dangerous or take your statement back.

I'll take nothing back, it's my personal opinion. See the video I posted. That dog attacked and mauled five men and it wasn't the first time.

There was case here years ago where a Rottweiler was stolen and Gardai put a full page warning in the paper about the fact the dog had a trigger word which would make it attack.

When I was in New York not so long ago there were three separate news stories about Pit Bull attacks.

I could go on.

OP, you should never own a dog, because you are incapable of trusting them and will develop a dangerous animal, regardless of breed.

As I said in my OP I do have a dog and he's the loveliest creature you could meet but I appreciate that he, and all animals, are to be treated with respect and not treated as fluffly little toys.

wexie

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

All I advocate is that people be a little more willing to accept that SOME dogs could potentially be more dangerous than others and need to be treated more cautiously.

There, now I agree.

I don't think there are many posters here that wouldn't agree that some dogs can be very very dangerous. The disagreement is in why that might be. A bad owner could possibly even end up with a vicious Golden Retriever. But that's not the dogs fault.

And the control of dogs act is just useless. It should be control of dog owners act and go for all breeds. I bet if you tried hard enough you could make a golden retriever vicious.

ScumLord

deaddonkey wrote: »

Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years. the clue is in the name; Domestic Dog. They are not wild animals. Don't talk poopy.

I wouldn't say we did domesticate the dog in that we decided wolves would make useful pets and made them like us. New research says they more than likely choose to team up with us and domesticated themselves by simply hanging around our food waste and loosing their fear of humans slowly.

Sergeant wrote: »

Dogs aren't human though, and any comparison between killing off a species of dog and killing off a race of people is a spurious one.

Dogs have more in common with humans than just about any other animal. Dogs are one of the only animals to understand pointing outside of the human race. They are adapt at reading human expressions and emotions. Socially they're very much like humans at this stage.

I think it's fair to then assume they get aggressive for the same reasons (which is mostly true), prolonged physical or mental abuse against people or dogs will nearly always have the same results.

Freddie59

The unfortunate thing, as one poster put it already, is that if dogs are mistreated or goaded, they will, naturally, become vicious. Like children, they must be taught the difference between right and wrong, and what they can - and cannot - do.

Also unfortunate is the fact that certain breeds tend to attract a certain owner (albeit a minority) and this exacerbates things even further. We had a problem with a neighbour some years ago. The guy was a complete low-life and loved poncing around with two huge dogs, attempting to intimidate all and sundry. he was a complete joke, but, as the Gardai put it, was more au fait with the law than they were.

We own an 18-month old Yorkie ourselves. As a breed they have the name of being temperamental and saucy. But only if they are left. He is the most placid little thing and great with everyone, kids included.

We also had a Yorkie for eleven years, with the same story. But nothing torments me more than seeing some scumbag toerag prancing around with a Staffie or a German Shepherd, using the dogs as some kind of tough guy accessory. Fcuking pricks the lot of them.

Nothingbetter2d

pitbulls, rottwielers, and other dogs listed on the dangerous dog list should be muzzled when not supervised.

Zab

deaddonkey wrote: »

You didn't. You advocated discrimination against breed based on your prejudices though. How about some races of people should be muzzled and locked up because your prejudices make you fear them?

ScumLord wrote: »

Dogs have more in common with humans than just about any other animal. Dogs are one of the only animals to understand pointing outside of the human race. They are adapt at reading human expressions and emotions. Socially they're very much like humans at this stage.

I think it's fair to then assume they get aggressive for the same reasons (which is mostly true), prolonged physical or mental abuse against people or dogs will nearly always have the same results.

Guys, I can't take your arguments seriously if you insist on making direct comparisons between dogs and humans. Dogs are not human. Dogs are not similar to humans. Saying that a breed should be muzzled is not akin to saying a particular race should be muzzled. It's not "fair to assume" that they get aggressive for the same reasons as we do just because they hang around with us.

I even agree with most of your ends. Some breeds may only be dangerous by name rather than by fact, but this is not the same as human racism. Dogs do appear to react to our emotions, and can understand pointing. I think that's really interesting and it's part of the reason they make very good pets. I think there's loads of room for fascinating research in there, but even if dogs were proven to be closer in mindset to us than any other species, they'd still be too far away for your comparisons.

Continuity Wolfe Tone

Some dogs are more dangerous than others, thats just fact. Its mainly because of strength and size, obviously a viscous German Shepard is more dangerous than a terrier (many of those little bastards are viscous! I used to deliver things, leaflets etc, it was the small dogs you had to look out for) simply because it can do much more damage.

With that in mind I think there should be restrictions on "dangerous dogs", restrictions on who can own them. Maybe have a test required for prospective owners or something like that. But that throws up practical problems.

My friend has an Irish Wolfhound who I am pretty sure could kill the entire household if it set it's mind to it, luckily Irish Wolfhounds, and this one especially is really friendly.

Dogs can be weapons in the wrong hands, especially big/strong dogs. SO there needs to be restrictions on who can own them. However there are practical problems like that so mandating that the "Most dangerous" dogs wear muzzles is a necessary precaution.

As for certain dogs being predisposed to being aggressive, I think there is some truth in that, but in a good environment that should never become an issue.

Animals at the end of the day are animals. Many dog owners forget that. Humans must come first and with powerful dogs which may have been bred for fighting etc, it's better to be safe than sorry and agree with certain types of dogs having restrictions (i.e muzzles).

Its a case of bad owners ruining it for everyone I guess, but better safe than sorry.

jupiterjack

there is no such thing as a dangerous dog but dangerous owners who through their own life conditioning can inturn have an influence on the behaviour of any breed of dog. so to the original poster who is a dog owner but yet would not consider owning a dog on the restricted list is somewhat bewildering to me. try not to be so influenced by media reports.

2ndcoming

The list is a bit ridiculous in that it considers Staffs and such as dangerous but makes no mention of numerous other bull terrier/ bulldog types like Cane Corso or Dogo Argentino that are arguably more dangerous in the wrong hands than the ones that are listed, but by virtue of the fact that they're not listed, could potentially be sought out now to avoid the hassle associated with the listed ones.

From my experience Rottweilers are one of the most intelligent and loyal breeds of dog, and probably less likely to bite anyone than a Jack Russell.

Am I right in thinking these laws only apply to people living in Council/Corporation houses?

Melted

that list is a joke i was bit twice in my life by dogs and that were collies who were neglected and left to rot by their owners. ive raised a few dogs and they have never become so viciouse including collies and collie croses.

funily enough some of the nicest dogs and well trained ive met were akitas (american and japanese) rottweillers staffies and ridgebacks?!

deaddonkey

Zab wrote: »

Guys, I can't take your arguments seriously if you insist on making direct comparisons between dogs and humans.

a dog's life is a life too. Why should their freedom be restricted (muzzle, lead, put to sleep), when they have done nothing wrong, just because some people with prejudices want to label a whole breed as dangerous because it suits them? statistically some races of humans are more dangerous, statistically some breeds of dog are more dangerous, but no one for a moment is suggesting we imprison certain racial groups because of what might happen. Well sorry guys if you can't even see the comparison then you are very, very blind to your prejudices and moral problems. Hey it's just a dog.

You can't have one set of morals for one species and not for another. So we've actually reached the point where we can effectively say all members of that species/social group/race is dangerous, we can ban them, we can euthanise without legal recourse, we can restrict their freedom, and if you try and challenge it, the best anyone can do is "they're dogs and you can't compare". Is that really the best we can do?

Fear and stereotypes is what has led to the greatest human tragedies in history, but hey, don't worry, it's just a disposable dog.

Humans make me sick.

Where they burn books eventually they will burn people.

AudreyHepburn

I think I'm being taken up the wrong way.

I am certainly not advocating destroying entire breeds because they are considered dangerous. If a dog attacks a person then yes it needs to be put down. Otherwise people with dogs considered dangerous just need to take proper precautions such as the muzzel when the animal is outside.

It's not being prejudaced nor am I blinded by fear, just cautious.

I do agree that bad owners are a lot of the problem but until these people acknowledge that for instance owning a Pit Bull is more of a risk then a Labrador and start taking the proper precautions with these animals, then it is the dogs that must be restricted and put down if necessary.

It's perfectly possible to love dogs and to own one, while acknowledge that some of them are dangerous and have more of a propensity to violence than others.

seamus

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Otherwise people with dogs considered dangerous just need to take proper precautions such as the muzzel when the animal is outside.

"Proper precautions" are debateable.

The vast majority of dog attacks occur on private property and the victim is someone known to the owner (or is the owner 50% of the time).

Dogs out and about with their owners in public do not represent a safety issue and as such any requirement for muzzling serves little purpose because it provides no more safety than requiring people to tie a yellow ribbon around the dogs' necks.

It's a bit of a catch-22; those dogs which do need most urgently to be muzzled are the ones who won't be muzzled by their owner. Those dogs who don't need to be muzzled are the ones who will be.

The only real solution is to stop the wholesale breeding and ownership rights which exist in this country. Regulate breeding and ownership such that you can keep track of every dog and by extension keep track of their owners.

But like I said, dogs are way, way down the scale when it comes to public safety issues, so there will never a proper response to it. We may as well have no law in respect of dogs in this country, it would be no different.

Zab

deaddonkey wrote: »

a dog's life is a life too. Why should their freedom be restricted (muzzle, lead, put to sleep), when they have done nothing wrong, just because some people with prejudices want to label a whole breed as dangerous because it suits them? statistically some races of humans are more dangerous, statistically some breeds of dog are more dangerous, but no one for a moment is suggesting we imprison certain racial groups because of what might happen. Well sorry guys if you can't even see the comparison then you are very, very blind to your prejudices and moral problems. Hey it's just a dog.

Okay, I see where you're going here. The details of that discussion aren't suited to AH, but the important part is that human life is more important to me than dog life. I will say that I'm an atheist and that I don't want you to conflate what I'm saying with an opinion that certain dog breeds should be exterminated.

You can't have one set of morals for one species and not for another.

Of course you can, and of course you do. Your entire existence is predicated on human life being more important than rest of the life on the planet. When you've returned to a nomadic hunter-gatherer existence and eschewed all modern-day society then please let me know. Of course, you won't have access to the internet so you'll have to send word by other means. Almost every part of modern life wouldn't be possible if you genuinely upheld equal rights for animals and humans alike.

So we've actually reached the point where we can effectively say all members of that species/social group/race is dangerous, we can ban them, we can euthanise without legal recourse, we can restrict their freedom, and if you try and challenge it, the best anyone can do is "they're dogs and you can't compare". Is that really the best we can do?

Nobody has used "they're dogs and you can't compare" as an argument to do anything, it's only been used as a counter-argument against giving them equal rights to humans. I also have to note that, even though you're responding to me saying that you shouldn't directly compare humans to dogs, you somehow manage to suggest that the people arguing against you are talking about humans too.

Fear and stereotypes is what has led to the greatest human tragedies in history, but hey, don't worry, it's just a disposable dog.

Humans make me sick.

Where they burn books eventually they will burn people.

You're falling into the trap of assuming that because people don't agree with your reasoning that they don't agree with your conclusion. Most people in this thread don't think that dogs should be exterminated based on their breed.

deaddonkey

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think I'm being taken up the wrong way.

I am certainly not advocating destroying entire breeds because they are considered dangerous. If a dog attacks a person then yes it needs to be put down. Otherwise people with dogs considered dangerous just need to take proper precautions such as the muzzel when the animal is outside.

It's not being prejudaced nor am I blinded by fear, just cautious.

I do agree that bad owners are a lot of the problem but until these people acknowledge that for instance owning a Pit Bull is more of a risk then a Labrador and start taking the proper precautions with these animals, then it is the dogs that must be restricted and put down if necessary.

It's perfectly possible to love dogs and to own one, while acknowledge that some of them are dangerous and have more of a propensity to violence than others.

Why should a dog owner of a certain breed have to muzzle his dog because you are prejudiced and insecure? Why should the dog be punished for it's genetic lineage? You should probably start judging it on a dog by dog basis, the same way you judge people. And do some work on your intolerance and stereotypes while you're at it.

So why do you feel the need to insist that only the restricted breeds have the potential to be dangerous?

The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards.

http://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/the-breeds-most-likely-to-kill.html

Oh look! USA dog bite statistics between September 1982 to November 13, 2006

http://www.dog-obedience-training-online.com/dog-bite-statistics-by-breed.html

Most dangerous breed? Labrador cross!

Seriously I think you should probably get your head checked because your argument is fuelled by media hysteria and prejudices. How much study have you done in this area? How many "dangerous breed" animals have you owned? How much personal experience do you have with these "dangerous breeds" that are obviously more dangerous than other dogs because the government says so?

Seriously I'm absolutely dying to hear your logic here. But there isn't any, you're just impressionable, naive and misinformed. Labrador mauls baby doesn't make a good headline to sell papers though does it?

Who the **** are humans to decide that an entire breed is dangerous? Do you realise how unpleasant that makes people sound?

but it's just a dog!

Zab

seamus wrote: »

What we do have a major issue with is control of dogs in general, and although we have the legislation for it, we don't have the enforcement.

Why is this a major issue if we don't have a dog attack problem?

seamus

Zab wrote: »

Why is this a major issue if we don't have a dog attack problem?

Because there's a public health issue with people allowing their dogs to crap everywhere. To a certain extent there's a nuisance issue with people allowing their dogs to roam.

There's also an animal welfare issue in that unregulated dog ownership causes tens of thousands of dogs to be unnecessarily killed in Ireland each year and tens of thousands more to be severly neglected.

AudreyHepburn

deaddonkey wrote: »

So why do you feel the need to insist that only the restricted breeds have the potential to be dangerous?



http://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/the-breeds-most-likely-to-kill.html

Oh look! USA dog bite statistics between September 1982 to November 13, 2006

http://www.dog-obedience-training-online.com/dog-bite-statistics-by-breed.html

Most dangerous breed? Labrador cross!

Seriously I think you should probably get your head checked because your argument is fuelled by media hysteria and prejudices. How much study have you done in this area? How many "dangerous breed" animals have you owned? How much personal experience do you have with these "dangerous breeds" that are obviously more dangerous than other dogs because the government says so?

Seriously I'm absolutely dying to hear your logic here. But there isn't any, you're just impressionable, naive and misinformed. Labrador mauls baby doesn't make a good headline to sell papers though does it?

Who the **** are humans to decide that an entire breed is dangerous? Do you realise how unpleasant that makes people sound?

but it's just a dog!

I have never once said that only certain breeds of dog are dangerous. What I said was that some breeds have a more of a tendancy to be agressive than others.

I do not need my headchecked. I am not naive nor impressionable at all. I acknoweldged in my first post that my own lovely dog could turn as deadly as a pit bull if he was provoked enough.

I never once said 'it's just a dog', that's not how I feel at all.

Zab

seamus wrote: »

Because there's a public health issue with people allowing their dogs to crap everywhere. To a certain extent there's a nuisance issue with people allowing their dogs to roam.

There's also an animal welfare issue in that unregulated dog ownership causes tens of thousands of dogs to be unnecessarily killed in Ireland each year and tens of thousands more to be severly neglected.

Ah, the crap! I think you'll agree that this is much improved on how things were 20 years ago, so at least we seem to be going in the right direction. I'm not 100% on the nuisance issue. It obviously exists but I don't know how much or a problem it is (I can't only speak to my limited experience obviously) and whether it can really be termed a major issue if it isn't combined with attacks.

I guess I just think we're heading in the right direction on those issues anyway.

deaddonkey

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have never once said that only certain breeds of dog are dangerous.

That isn't true. Here's teh relevant line from your first post:

Below is a list of the dogs which, in Ireland, are considered dangerous enough that strict precautions need to be taken with them. I personally wouldn’t even consider owning one.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0442.html

That reads to me like you're judging a whole set of breeds as dangerous. So as long as all these breeds are muzzled in public the public is safer, yet you acknowledge that your dog could be dangerous, but because of his breeding you don't feel he should be muzzled?

Is that because he's small and cuddly, or is it because he's not on the restricted breeds list, or because he's yours and you you think you know your dog better than the owner of a "dangerous breed" knows his dog? If any dog has the potential to be dangerous, why in the name of all that is holy are you calling for enforcement of breed specific legislation?

Is that correct? Anything you'd like to clear up for me there, because I'm confused at the double standards.

What I said was that some breeds have a more of a tendancy to be agressive than others.

No they don't. People training and raising dogs a certain way makes them more aggressive. Unfortunately people tend to use certain breeds for this purpose, but to me that isn't any kind of scientific relationship between genetic makeup of the dog and its tendency to be aggressive.

104 deaths from labrador X bites in the US between 82 and 06.

In the same period:

Rottweiler: 0 deaths
German Shepherd: 2 deaths
Dobermann: 7 deaths.
Akita: 1 death

I for one will not rest until every last labrador cross is euthanised. Clearly these are dangerous animals and we need to enact a law against them in the interest of public safety.

You know why the lab X figures are so high? It's not because labs are dangerous. Any dog is dangerous but there's a lot of labX dogs out there, and as dogs, all have the potential to be dangerous. But if I followed your logic I'd be calling for all labs to be muzzled in public, which I'm sure you'd agree is a ludicrous suggestion. They're cute remember?

Zab

deaddonkey wrote: »

http://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/the-breeds-most-likely-to-kill.html

Oh look! USA dog bite statistics between September 1982 to November 13, 2006

http://www.dog-obedience-training-online.com/dog-bite-statistics-by-breed.html

Most dangerous breed? Labrador cross!

I think you may have misread those docuements. They both call out Pit Bull Terriers and Rottweilers as accounting for over 67% of attacks. Neither of them pin any blame on Labrador-crosses.

The story about the Pomeranian is only there to evoke emotions. That was the only reported Pomeranian bite between 1982 and 2006.

deaddonkey

I counted deaths attributed to those breeds, not overall numbers of attacks.

from this link here

http://www.dog-obedience-training-online.com/dog-bite-statistics-by-breed.html

ScumLord

I think the underlying problem is that cities are not a suitable environment for a dog. City dogs have to be locked up most of the day, have to deal with far to many people, have to deal with city scumbags torturing them and have no place to be a free animal.

This is even becoming a problem in country towns too as there is essentially no public ground for anything. Every bit of land is owned by someone who doesn't want anyone on their land.

Dogs used to always work for their place in human society, we breed them to work and they like to work. It's not surprising there are more and more problems with them these days.

Zab

deaddonkey wrote: »

I counted deaths attributed to those breeds, not overall numbers of attacks.

from this link here

http://www.dog-obedience-training-online.com/dog-bite-statistics-by-breed.html

You counted badly. I've fixed your post for you

deaddonkey wrote: »

5 deaths from labrador X bites in the US between 82 and 06 (3 of which were Pit bull cross).

In the same period not including crosses:

Pit bull terrier: 104 deaths
Rottweiler:58 deaths
German Shepherd: 7 deaths
Dobermann: 3 deaths.
Akita: 1 death

NTMK

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I’m curious as to people’s opinions on the keeping of dangerous dogs.

there is no such thing just crap owners. every medium to large dog is as dangerous as the last. Staffs and pitbulls are considered "dangerous" dogs in my experience of training and minding them they are some of the most intelligent and trainable dogs out there. very loyal and obedient and quiet docile dogs. The reason that they're given a bad rap is because of the scum that usually own them to make them selfs look hard:rolleyes: or sometimes they're trained to fight

My own opinion would be that you can ever completely domesticate any animal; their wild instincts always remain with them. I would never totally trust any dog, even my own gorgeous little man at home. He’s the most pleasant docile creature you could meet but I know that if he felt threatened he could turn dangerous in an instant. If for instance some-one tried to break-in to our house I have no doubt he’d make them regret, whether it would be about protecting himself, us, his patch I don’t know.

Dogs naturally follow a leadership system you ascert yourself as pack leader and let them know whos boss they are easy to train and will follow your commands. if i felt threatened i would probably defend myself hardly an instinct reserved for wild animals

I acknowledge that there is an onus on the owner to ensure that the dog is trained as much as possible and to take all necessary precautions to protect the dog and those it comes into contact with. For example with my dog, we used to give him raw hide bones to chew on but we had to stop because he became quite territorial with them. If an owner is particularly abusive to his/her dog or breeds it for the purpose of fighting or guarding then obviously there is a greater danger that the animal could seriously hurt some-one or worse.

If an owner is training a dog for gaurding a house then the owner is responsible to make sure it doesnt attack outside of the property its protecting and ensure the dog cant escape. if an owner trains dogs for fighting they should be locked up. this case with the pitbull it isnt a properly trained guard dog if it is one and who ever "trained it" should be locked up a dog which reacts like that is trained to be viscous or treated very creuly

There are however some breeds of dog which, in my opinion, are far more predisposed to be aggressive than others (even when treated well and trained right) and with these, I’m not sure owning one is a good idea. Below is a list of the dogs which, in Ireland, are considered dangerous enough that strict precautions need to be taken with them. I personally wouldn’t even consider owning one.

ime if anything smaller dogs (westies, yorkie, Jack russles) are far more aggressive than bigger dogs they never back down and are often the aggressor in most situations. ive been involved in the training of 6 of those breeds (pinscher,ridgeback,pitbull,G. shepard,mastiff and staffie) and i live a 2 minute walk away from 4 of those breeds that are highly trained. owner is responsible and an incredible trainer(dogs follow commands in both german and english). none and i repeat none of those dogs have or will ever attack until given the signal to do so (they'll bark and growl but draw the line they're ive seen it first hand).

I’ve heard countless people who own one of the breeds listed say ‘ah sure he/she is a dote, he/she wouldn’t hurt a fly’ but I think that’s a foolhardy attitude. The reality is these are dangerous animals and need to be treated with caution, even if they have never shown any aggression.

I own 2 yorkies i've no desire to ever own large dogs too much training involved. a dog is as dangerous as its owner is negligent. I had a springer spaniel as kid (primarily a gun dog) i used kicked the **** out of him (pulling his ears tackling him) when i was very young and didnt know better and never bit me. when we'd bring for a walk or let off for a run in a field he was muzzled all the neighbours dogs are always muzzled when walking. its called good ownership. dogs only act badly when they're mistreated/trained badly

Son Of A Vidic

Zab wrote: »

You counted badly. I've fixed your post for you

And ironically you still go and get it wrong. Go back and count carefully and you'll see where.

Zab

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

And ironically you still go and get it wrong. Go back and count carefully and you'll see where.

That's possible of course, but as I'm short on time and you've clearly already looked perhaps you could help me out

Stercus Accidit

Some dogs have the potential to be far more dangerous than others, especially with a scummy owner. It is basically a weapon with a mind of its own with hardly any regulation. I don't like that a scummer can train a dog into a vicious weapon, some dogs have far more potential in this regard than others.

Discodog

I own dogs, I have rescued dogs, & worked with dog rescues. I have never met a bad dog or a dangerous dog. If a dog bites a person then the owner should be prosecuted & made to pay for the rehabilitation of the dog. It is ludicrous to kill a dog as punishment for doing as it was told. In the middle ages animals could be called into Court to give evidence in their defence - their silence was seen as proof of guilt. We haven't really moved on.

Lots of people get a dog as a guard or for personal protection. They encourage it to bark & show aggression to "strangers" but also be a nice family pet. So it's hardly surprising if the poor dog gets it wrong. Yes dogs evolved from Wolves but we now know that Wolves are not aggressive.

We sort of copied the UK law & we produced a bizarre list of "restricted breeds" based on no evidence. The UK plan to drop their breed bans & make the owners responsible, not the dogs. They also plan to make microchipping compulsory but our government have no plans to follow suit.

There are no aggressive breeds, dangerous breeds, more likely to bite breeds. The only dangerous & aggressive animals are humans.

AudreyHepburn

deaddonkey wrote: »

That isn't true. Here's teh relevant line from your first post:



That reads to me like you're judging a whole set of breeds as dangerous. So as long as all these breeds are muzzled in public the public is safer, yet you acknowledge that your dog could be dangerous, but because of his breeding you don't feel he should be muzzled?

Is that because he's small and cuddly, or is it because he's not on the restricted breeds list, or because he's yours and you you think you know your dog better than the owner of a "dangerous breed" knows his dog? If any dog has the potential to be dangerous, why in the name of all that is holy are you calling for enforcement of breed specific legislation?

Is that correct? Anything you'd like to clear up for me there, because I'm confused at the double standards.



No they don't. People training and raising dogs a certain way makes them more aggressive. Unfortunately people tend to use certain breeds for this purpose, but to me that isn't any kind of scientific relationship between genetic makeup of the dog and its tendency to be aggressive.

104 deaths from labrador X bites in the US between 82 and 06.

In the same period:

Rottweiler: 0 deaths
German Shepherd: 2 deaths
Dobermann: 7 deaths.
Akita: 1 death

I for one will not rest until every last labrador cross is euthanised. Clearly these are dangerous animals and we need to enact a law against them in the interest of public safety.

You know why the lab X figures are so high? It's not because labs are dangerous. Any dog is dangerous but there's a lot of labX dogs out there, and as dogs, all have the potential to be dangerous. But if I followed your logic I'd be calling for all labs to be muzzled in public, which I'm sure you'd agree is a ludicrous suggestion. They're cute remember?

I think you are mis-reading both my posts and your own links, either deliberatly or by mistake.

If you look at your links the dogs with the highest numbers next to them include Rottwiler, Akita, Pit Bull (and it's variations) and Bull Mastiff...all of which are named in the link I provided.

It's clear that you firmly believe in animal welfare which is commendable and I am with you there.....up to the point where human lives are endangered.

There are, whether you care to admit it or not, some breeds of dog which are more predisposed to being agressive than others and for thise stricter precautions need to be follow. But any dog, any animal, needs to be treated with respect and caution.

I trust my dog for all the reasons you mentioned (except the small and cuddly bit, he's a Lab-Collie cross) but I also know his limits and respect them. He knows where he stands with us too.

I really fail to see what aspects of my post you're struggling with and suggest that you are simply arguing for the sake of it now.

deaddonkey

Zab wrote: »

You counted badly. I've fixed your post for you

You don't seem to be able to read a basic table. That's a shame.