Agreed Azz hold those responsible for producing the dogs behaviour responsible for the dogs actions.
Even when prison sentences are handed out they are ridiculously short.

Trouble has hit the nail squarely on the head with that last sentence. Those who "train" these traits into a dog and then use it as a weapon or for felonious purposes should be jailed (and I mean a proper sentence similar to that for illegally using a firearm).
Start giving them 10 years and the macho posturing and animal abuse would soon lose it's appeal.

I have been thinking on this a lot, the debate has been very helpful and interesting... Thank you for keeping it friendly

I take some of the points but I still have concerns and will try to answer some of the questions raised...

Firstly, Sorry but yes, I still do think that certain breeds are more dangerous than others, surely that's a no-brainer? of course a small toy breed bred as a companion animal can still be aggressive but this is not the same as a medium-large breed dog bred to fight/ guard.

The "Wrong people" target these breeds because of these very reasons? the size/look of the dog and the ability to encourage aggressive traits? this is far easier in breeds that already have these traits in their history? These breeds are chosen because of their breed traits-Just the same as someone who chooses a dog for any other specific purpose (work, sport or family pet?) I find it hard to accept that the dogs breed is not a factor in the problem here?



As for media coverage of dog attacks , I think any incident that resulted in serious injury or death would be reported, regardless of breed? I think the most popular breed in the UK was always the Labrador but we don't have loads of stories about these? Also, a bite is very different to a mauling- I was shocked by the Golden Retriever links but surely this is very rare? So I have to conclude its not just about the popularity of a breed, or even Just the way it was bred, raised etc its also about the actual breed? I'm sure there are plenty of other breeds that are equally as abused/misused but some breeds are more dangerous than others as a result of this?

The saddest stories are those of a family pet, a family who take on a dog in good faith, whether puppy or rescue, the dog has been well looked after, well trained etc but then it still turns aggressive? Why does this happen if its not somewhere in the breed?


Honestly, I don't know what the solution is but my view is best to tackle the problem from both sides, I realise that legislation feels unfair to responsible dog owners but I still feel that some degree of control on dog ownership may be necessary?


The issue for me is YES humans are the ultimate problem and we do have quite tough laws on dangerous dogs already but how do we stop the cycle? Legislation on certain breeds would ultimately address the human problem as it would make it very difficult for them to own these breeds, breed from them, and keep them in an irresponsible manner?

ANY larger dog can be a problem. There are "bad people" who take in Mastiffs, Great Danes, Rottweilers, Dobermans, German Shepherds, even someone who apparently has a Border Collie as a "guard dog." There are breeds that are guardians meant to be more distrustful of humans. ANY dog who is larger can be aggressive if put in the wrong hands. So are we going to ban all larger breeds of dog? Restrict ownership? I have two dogs, one 40 pounds and one 45. Both could do some serious damage if they were aggressive. My smaller, younger dog is quick and agile. If he had been mistreated and taught to be aggressive he could be a nightmare. My older dog is solidly built and tenacious. If a dog attacks her she will throw it down with them and has bit through a dog's ear when it went after another dog. If she had been mistreated or trained to be aggressive she too could have been a nightmare. Should I have to take my dogs out on muzzles because they COULD have been something awful?

The problem with what you seem to want is that it is a slipperly slope to not allowing anyone to own larger dogs. Should we all just keep Yorkshire Terriers and Pomeranians? Would that make you feel more comfortable.

What sort of control should you inflict on me and my perfectly fine dogs? Or are you not going to because they happen to be fluffy dogs?

The reality is you can NEVER EVER stop bad people from doing bad things. Restrict one breed and they'll find another. Restrict one breed and that one will become even more prized for its illegality. We have tons of very strict laws on drinking and driving and yet people STILL do it. They tried to get rid of all alcohol here in the early 20th century. It just drove people underground to do it illegally.

As for those "family pet" stories...I think you need to look deeper into that. The media spins it that way because that gets clicks. "Dog left chained up outside mauls child" is not quite so impactful as "Family pet mauls child."

There was one story where they describes two dogs who killed a woman as "family pets." This brings to mind dogs laying in front of the fireplace, beloved dogs. But the reality was that the dogs belonged to her ex, who had abandoned them. They left them in the basement of a house no one lived in and showed up once in awhile to toss them some food. When the dogs were euthanized and they did a necropsy they found they had nothing more than rubberbands and RAT POISON in their stomachs. They were STARVING...abandoned, neglected, and mistreated. But the media described them as "family pets." So take EVERYTHING you read from them with a grain of salt. They are meant to write headlines and stories to get you to click.

And again, check out The Pit Bull Placebo. I seem to recall her having some statistics on news coverage of various breed attacks. When a pit bull attacks (or a dog the media can call a pit bull because let's face it, any dog who has short hair and has a blocky head is going to be called a pit bull even if no one actually knows the breed) it will be covered far and wide. When a Lab attacks, a few local papers pick it up. The headlines are often even different. "Pit Bull mauls child!" even if the child has a couple bites. "Dog bites child" (no mention of the breed of course because that's ONLY important if it's a pit bull) even if the child was sent to the hospital and required extensive surgery.

This is NOT about the breed. Again, ANY larger dog can do serious damage and yes, Golden Retrievers and Labs are being involved more and more due to poor breeding (puppy mills, BYBs, etc.). A solidly bred Pit Bull or Amercian Staffordshire Terrier (which are often lumped together) should be no more dangerous to humans than a solidly bred Golden Retriever. The AmStaff is officially described as "confident, good-natured, and smart."

If I, as a good and responsible dog owner, want to own an AmStaff or a pit bull mix why should it be "very difficult" for me to do so? What sort of legislation are you proposing? Again, it's a super slippery slope. You'd have to ultimately ban ALL larger dogs. Even now you see "tough guys" wanting bigger, scarier dogs. So they either abandon the pit bull all together or breed it with mastiffs, Cane Corsos, and other larger dogs. So do we ban all larger dogs? Maybe that's what you're calling for here, I don't know. But I certainly don't agree.

I don't really agree with complete bans on potentially dangerous breeds (those already listed or indeed others mentioned here) but I do think that we need some form of legislation. I have 2 reasons for this view, First I would hope that it would promote responsible ownership and second I feel its the only way to actually prevent on-going issues rather than simply deal with the "Deed" after it has already happened.

Quote:
"As for those "family pet" stories...I think you need to look deeper into that. The media spins it that way because that gets clicks"

Sadly however this is exactly what I witnessed (sorry I can't go into the details of this but all I can say is that this WAS a family dog, not a banned breed but a pure bred breed very similar, it was well researched, well bred, well trained/socialised with no issues for over 4 years yet it ATTACKED a woman completely unprovoked)

This incident really made me challenge my views on this subject hence my original post but I have been somewhat reassured by the discussions on this thread so this has been helpful.

If we need legislation it has to be for every breed otherwise you just alienate certain owners. Why the hell should my well trained, well bred, trustworthy Staffie be lumped in with ill bred untrained dogs owned by idiots. I'm an excellent dog owner who happens to have mostly owned larger dogs, which is why I don't consider a Staffie large by any stretch of the imagination. Should I and my dogs be penalised because others can't or won't control their dogs. I'm sick to death of the way staffies etc are portrayed. I'd personally put the irresponsible owners to sleep along with their dog. Why should the dog pay the price when he's had no choice in how he's been brought up, trained etc.
As for us having legislation against owners already in place, what planet are you on? Those who are given custodial sentences are usually weeks or months not the 10 years I'd give them.
As has been said over and over, no breed will be immune from idiot owners.

But shouldn't we promote responsible ownership of ALL breeds? Or is it ok that someone's Pomeranian killed their infant?

What sort of legislation are you even thinking is appropriate here?

Yes we should promote responsible ownership of ALL breeds but legislation is about likelihood (dog predisposed to aggressive/guarding tendencies) potential for serious harm (size, strength of dog, manner by which they attack) , and prevention. (some form of legislation on breeds that fit the above critera and adequate punishment for humans as effective deterrent for irresponsible ownership)

Specific ideas for Legislation are difficult I admit that, ( I believe other countries have special licensing for specified breeds , compulsory training classes, licensing for owning multiple dogs, Lead restrictions, laws on how specific breeds are kept )I do understand that many owners would feel its unfair that rules apply to their dog and not others.

So those should be for anyone who has a large dog? I mean, that's what you're saying basically. There are no dogs predisposed to attacking humans. ANY large dog can do serious harm.

And here's a lovely bit of that -- pit bulls are TERRIBLE guard dogs. Terrible. Because they are meant to be people friendly. That is not part of their breeding or nature. So what you're saying is that they would not be part of your legislation because it's not actually what they were bred for. Dog aggression was part of the breed (being bred out), but people aggression? It's not.

You'd then want to legislate against dogs like Anatolian Shepherds, Great Pyrenees, Brazilian Mastiffs, and the like. Those are guardian breeds. So now you're into a whole different world than I think you want to be.

And "the manner in which they attack"? (Please tell me you don't believe that nonsense about locking jaws?) I'm sure that the children attacked by those Golden Retrievers would love to know that it was ok for the dog to bite them multiple times instead of gripping and holding. Yes, that would make them feel safer no doubt about it!

ALL dogs can attack. ALL dogs can cause serious harm. Larger dogs can kill. That's a fact of life. We need to support dog ownership but restricting one breed while allowing another to go without restrictions is entirely wrong and unfair. AND on top of that, making a dog "illegal" just makes it MORE interesting to those who would abuse and neglect them.