register for free
View our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
waggytail
Dogsey Junior
waggytail is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 197
Female 
 
29-05-2016, 04:48 PM

Breed specific legislation?

I raised this question in another thread but it got a bit lost and I am genuinely interested in debating this issue properly? Honestly I don't want an argument or witch-hunt I am genuinely concerned about it.

I accept that people feel that any breed of dog can be trained or bred to be dangerous but I also feel that many breeds of dog have been targeted because of their history for fighting etc, I also believe that certain breeds are different in the way that they aggress and thus the potential to harm or kill is increased when these traits are actively encouraged.

I completely accept that whatever the case it is Humans that have ultimately caused the issues we face today. My question is that breed specific legislation surely is in place to deal with breeds where this is already the case? ie: breeds that have already had aggressive traits bred into them? that have been shown to be more dangerous than other breeds? that have actually already attacked/killed people?

if we believe in "deed not breed" should then, the American Pit bull terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro be allowed to be owned legally in the UK, with no restriction or legislation?

Legislation doesn't nessecarily have to be banning a breed completely but controlling how they are bred, trained, and managed to ensure that genuine responsible people who wish to own this type of dog can do so safely?
Reply With Quote
waggytail
Dogsey Junior
waggytail is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 197
Female 
 
01-06-2016, 10:34 AM
The silence on this post is very interesting…

I can only conclude that when the points raised here are considered in a very genuine and concerned manner it is very difficult to express a truly honest view on this subject? Why is it considered prejudice to label a particular breed as having a stronger aggressive trait but perfectly acceptable too label a certain breed as having a stronger chase instinct? Can people honestly say that there is no difference between different breeds in terms of the potential to bite, how they bite and the level of injury inflicted? Can people really deny the history of certain breeds, not to mention the current and on-going misuse of these breeds? I raise all these concerns as I have wrestled with it myself. my own views on BSL/”Deed not Breed” has been seriously challenged in recent times.

I am not a regular user of Dogsey, I read it a lot but do not often post anything, I was drawn back into discussions following the thread on the incident at Blyth Park (where 11 children were mauled at the local playground by a Staffordshire Bull terrier) and also because of an incident that I witnessed personally that was extremely distressing. (The dog in question was well bred, well researched and well raised by a very loving and responsible family and yet the attack was unprovoked and would have resulted in potentially life changing injuries if not for circumstances/quick action of persons involved)

I respect that people may not wish to discuss this subject however I would just like to add the following link for anyone who is interested to read more on the various viewpoints :

https://dogbitelaw.com/breed-specifi...-specific-laws

Thank you for your understanding on wanting to raise these points.
Waggytail.
Reply With Quote
Trouble
Dogsey Veteran
Trouble is online now  
Location: Romford, uk
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 13,927
Female  Diamond Supporter 
 
01-06-2016, 11:00 AM
I think it follows too closely on NickyAnns posts and therefore it's bad timing + the first person to respond was her till her post was removed.
Reply With Quote
waggytail
Dogsey Junior
waggytail is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 197
Female 
 
01-06-2016, 12:28 PM
Ah... I hadn't seen that, I thought her postings were restricted? anyway I agree that her comments were not helpful. Thanks Trouble.
Reply With Quote
Azz
Administrator
Azz is offline  
Location: South Wales, UK
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 18,496
Male 
 
01-06-2016, 12:30 PM
Originally Posted by waggytail View Post

if we believe in "deed not breed" should then, the American Pit bull terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro be allowed to be owned legally in the UK, with no restriction or legislation?
Yes - absolutely. The only thing BSL does is make such breeds more appealing.

Traits can be bred in (or out) in as little as 4 generations - for wild animals, it's just 8 generations! There is absolutely no need for any 'breed' to be 'bad' if breeders were ethical and doing what's right for the breed, i.e. breeding out any aggressive traits that may be been bred into them previously.

If enough breeders got together, they could destroy the temperament (and reputation) of any breed - just like they have done with many dogs of breeds currently targeted by BSL (not all dogs affected, just enough to push trigger happy people to target them).
Reply With Quote
Crysania
Dogsey Veteran
Crysania is offline  
Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,827
Female 
 
01-06-2016, 12:52 PM
Here's the reality of these dogs: They were often bred to be dog aggressive, not human aggressive. So there are still plenty out there with some serious dog aggression issues. They SHOULD generally be friendly to people. Even dogs bred for fighting should not attack their handlers.

And good breeders are trying to breed OUT the dog aggression while still retaining their tenacity.

I'm very much against breed specific legislation. it does nothing to address the root problem: humans. Throughout history various dog breeds have been the "super predators" -- German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Dobermans, even Bloodhounds in the late 19th and early 20th century. There have always been dog breeds that are vilified. You can always tell it's a movie from the 80s, for instance, if the "evil guard dog" is a Doberman. They were seen as the "super predators" at that time, then flipping over to the pit bull. Because of the advent of the internet, the pit bull has remained at the "super predator" status for a long time. The media does not help this by always focusing on THOSE dogs and not OTHER dogs who attack and politicians are not helping by creating a band-aid to address the problem.

The issue is and always has been HUMANS. Not the dogs.

The media presents a dog as a "super predator."
People who want a tough attack dog see that and say "That's the dog I want."
They get dogs of that breed, even breed them.
They abuse and neglect them.
Their dog gets loose and attacks someone (or someone approaches their chained dog and gets attacked).
The media reports on this "super predator dog."
And the whole cycle continues.

BSL has been proven completely pointless. In places where there is BSL, there are STILL as many dog attacks. Some people simply turn to other, non-banned breeds. Sometimes ones that are larger and more powerful (e.g. Rottweilers, Cane Corsos, etc.). Others just get those "illegal" breeds because they think it makes them look even tougher. And on and on it goes.

I live in a state where BSL itself is banned. And there are many many bully breed dogs around. While some are definitely dog aggressive, I also meet many complete love bugs who play with my dogs and are just normal dogs with large blocky heads.
Reply With Quote
waggytail
Dogsey Junior
waggytail is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 197
Female 
 
01-06-2016, 12:56 PM
I respect your sentiment Azz and I truly wish it was this easy but I don't feel it is... Sadly there will always be people who seek to breed and raise dogs for the wrong reasons and once the problem is out there it may be impossible to ever control it without some form of legislation?

Answering completely honestly I have to say I would be very worried if the UK lifted the ban on these 4 breeds. In the wrong hands these breeds have proven to be extremely dangerous , whatever the reason behind this (Humans) isn't public safety more important? I would rather see these breeds carefully controlled so they could be owned safely?
Reply With Quote
Crysania
Dogsey Veteran
Crysania is offline  
Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,827
Female 
 
01-06-2016, 01:04 PM
And breed can be very dangerous in the hands of the wrong people. Do you think if the wrong person had a German Shepherd or a Rottweiler or a Cane Corso they would be any LESS dangerous?

And there are breeds that could be even MORE dangerous, breeds that were bred to be distrustful and aggressive with strangers. Yet those are not banned, oddly enough.

Pit bulls and similar breeds can be owned safely. A Golden Retriever in the wrong hands can be dangerous. We had Lab in my neighborhood when I was a kid who was a TERROR. He would get loose and go after anyone who came near his house. He bit my brother and most of the neighborhood kids were terrified of him. Any medium or large size dog can be dangerous in the wrong hands. I'm sorry but you're fooling yourself if you think these dogs are any MORE dangerous than other breeds. It's just that they're seen as the "tough guys" and so more jerks with a chip on their shoulder get them. But how is that the dog's fault? 99.9999% of pit bull owners are decent folks. We're going to ban and kill a breed because a tiny percentage of people who own them neglect and abuse them? Hardly seems right and it doesn't make much sense.

If you kill off all the pit bulls in the world, all you're going to do is see those same people move onto other breeds.
Reply With Quote
waggytail
Dogsey Junior
waggytail is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 197
Female 
 
01-06-2016, 01:04 PM
I agree, Crysania. I think legislation has to address the issue of the dog (bad breeding, animal health and welfare) AND the Human (Education, licensing, control to ensure safe ownership)
Reply With Quote
Crysania
Dogsey Veteran
Crysania is offline  
Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,827
Female 
 
01-06-2016, 01:09 PM
What sort of "control to ensure safe ownership" do you mean? Something different than every other dog owner? Most places around here address aggressive dogs in general. Dogs who have been proven to be aggressive and it doesn't matter what the breed is. If someone's Golden Retriever bites someone it's treated the same way as it would had the dog been a Pit Bull.

Are you saying people who own certain dog breeds should be treated differently?

And we should be addressing bad breeding and health and welfare across the board. More and more backyard bred Golden Retrievers are turning up with nervous and aggressive temperaments here. I've come across a number in my old neighborhood that I had to steer clear of because they were dog aggressive. Do we ignore bad breeding unless it applies to SOME animals?
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 > Last »


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anti Breed Specific Legislation! Jodie End BSL General Dog Chat 2 19-05-2012 01:26 PM
Why breed - specific legislation is wrong inkliveeva General Dog Chat 3 05-07-2011 07:50 PM
Breed Specific Legislation nickmcmechan General Dog Chat 4 02-05-2010 02:17 PM
Could this be the end to Breed Specific Legislation? AlannaJohan General Dog Chat 6 28-04-2009 01:51 PM
Bsl - Breed Specific Legislation - A Ban On The Pitbull Tabatha General Dog Chat 2 13-11-2005 10:20 AM

© Copyright 2016, Dogsey   Contact Us - Dogsey - Top Contact us | Archive | Privacy | Terms of use | Top