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 
 
04-06-2016, 05:14 PM
From what I see, the first article, (Discussing the relationship of dog/other animal aggression to aggression towards people) was written by a very well respected attorney?

QUOTE: “Kenneth M. Phillips is the only attorney in the USA who represents dog bite victims full time. Widely recognized as the nation's leading authority on dog bite law, he has earned tens of millions of dollars for children and adults bitten by dogs. He works for clients throughout the country on a "no recovery, no fee" basis. He has been a frequent guest on CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MS-NBC, and Fox News, and has been called "the dog bite king" (Today Show and Lawyers Weekly), "a leading expert in dog bite law" (Good Housekeeping), and "the nation's best known practitioner of terrier torts" (Los Angeles Times)”

In fact, there are many other interesting and informative articles on his website :

https://dogbitelaw.com/

The other article (a list of expert opinions) is a HUGE list that includes Dog trainers, Rescuers, Animal control officers, ,Breeders, dog show judges, Surgeons, doctors, and medical professionals expert in treating victims of dog bites/attacks, Behaviourists, Biologists, Geneticists, Vets (AND owners!)

http://safetybeforebulldogs.blogspot.../label/Experts

Again, from what I see, some very well-known and respected people?

I’m sorry if raising these concerns offends anyone, they are my genuine concerns and I do have very mixed feelings about this whole subject. I will happily leave this thread alone now if it is upsetting to anyone. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
Trouble
Dogsey Veteran
Trouble is offline  
Location: Romford, uk
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 14,264
Female  Diamond Supporter 
 
04-06-2016, 06:26 PM
I still have no clue what breeds of dogs you want special measures against and you say you're in the UK yet keep posting links from the US.
Reply With Quote
Crysania
Dogsey Veteran
Crysania is offline  
Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,843
Female 
 
04-06-2016, 11:13 PM
He's an attorney. Who is out to make money. He is not an expert in canine behavior at all. He's someone who is out to make money off of someone's suffering. I doubt he even knows what a pit bull actually looks like. And it's HIS OWN SITE and he's citing himself as an expert. That in and of itself is suspect.

And I trust no site that is biased. You want truth? Don't look at a site called "safety before bulldogs" (when it's apparently not even about bulldogs, which are a completely different breed, but you know, who needs real life to intrude when you have an agenda).

The reality is you're wrong. Period. BSL doesn't work. BSL is unfair to good dogs and good owners. MOST pit bulls and related breeds are just out there living their lives being awesome dogs.

Like this dock diving wonderdog? A pit bull, btw. She's at a national competition for agility this weekend kicking some agility butt. She lives with a Corgi and a Poodle and is totally dog friendly.



Do you want to tell my friend she can't take she dog outside? That she has to muzzle it and tell everyone she has a dangerous dog when she doesn't? Should she allow someone to take her amazing dog and kill it just because they are completely ignorant?

Maybe you'd like to tell my dog's best friend Jackson (a pit bull/Great Dane mix) that he's a terrible dog and should be killed because of his breed mix.



Even though he's completely people and dog friendly and just a big goofball of a dog. He lives with a baby now and is perfectly happy and content.

What are you going to say to my friend with her 3-legged pit bull? She was neglected to the point of having to have her leg amputated because she broke it and her people never bothered to get it fixed.



She loves EVERYONE and is super dog friendly. Should we kill her or restrict her ownership when she's just an awesome dog?

THESE are the dogs you want to get rid of. Not some evil "super predator" the media wants you to believe they are.
Reply With Quote
CrazyDogLady
Dogsey Junior
CrazyDogLady is offline  
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 105
Female 
 
11-09-2016, 03:11 PM
Probably not the most insightful contribution but IMO there should be stricter rules on buying dogs for one and then maybe you should need either to apply for a license or have your local dog warden or someone official with dog savvy approve your home, circumstances and experience to own the more physically and demanding breeds. Most breeders are good at whittling out the numpties from the serious potential owners but unfortunately not all.

I'm not disputing that a smaller dog is more likely to bite - I'm saying that if the likes of my GSD wasn't trained and socialised correctly she'd potentially cause more of an issue.
She's faster, stronger, bigger and has more bite force but thankfully she's a very well trained dog, not luck but dedication to make sure the breed I love is never misrepresented.

The legislation does nothing but discriminate breeds and make them more desirable to the wrong people. Take that away from them and educate people, show case these breeds for the good they can do. At the end of the day I think we can agree that although breed traits can play a part it is the owner of said dog and not the dog. They aren't born as bad dogs someone comes along and makes them that way.

Apologies in advance for the rambling 😁 Again it might not be the most accurate nor insightful just a personal opinion
Reply With Quote
Crysania
Dogsey Veteran
Crysania is offline  
Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,843
Female 
 
11-09-2016, 03:42 PM
So is that for ANY larger dog? So...all sorts of Retrievers, the dogs that most people consider "family dogs" too? Because they can be 70, 80, some even 100 pounds these days. What is the weight cut off for considering a dog "more physically demanding"?

Because if it doesn't include those dogs, then it's just BSL by a different name and applied to even more dog breeds.
Reply With Quote
CrazyDogLady
Dogsey Junior
CrazyDogLady is offline  
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 105
Female 
 
11-09-2016, 03:57 PM
Originally Posted by Crysania View Post
So is that for ANY larger dog? So...all sorts of Retrievers, the dogs that most people consider "family dogs" too? Because they can be 70, 80, some even 100 pounds these days. What is the weight cut off for considering a dog "more physically demanding"?

Because if it doesn't include those dogs, then it's just BSL by a different name and applied to even more dog breeds.
Hmmmmm...... In a perfect world I think all owners should be assessed. I don't think I'm wrong for thinking that either, shelters and responsible breeders do the same thing. Dog ownership should be taken more seriously, accidents happen usually because of circumstances. A back yard breeder has sold a puppy to a young family with no prior dog experience and they've bitten off more than they could handle.

When I say more physically demanding I do mean only mean that their weight can out weigh your own. I know there's many a small pup that would probably run laps round me with their energy.

The breeds on the list at the moment are powerful breeds that require knowledgable owners with the right home, experience and lifestyle IMO. They shouldn't be banned their homes should be vetted and only certain people allowed to own and breed.

Again it's a very scatty version of what's in my head. Often getting it from the brain to the pad is a hard thing.
Reply With Quote
Bulldogs4Life
Dogsey Senior
Bulldogs4Life is offline  
Location: Pittsville, USA
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 257
Female 
 
22-03-2017, 01:12 AM
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?
How have those four specific breeds been shown to be more dangerous?
I have seen UK reports (I'm in the US) of Staffs, Rotts and German Shepherds attacking people and other animals often enough. I'm not saying they are dangerous/should be banned. Simply pointing out the fact that other breeds cause harm, but are not banned. I read the ban was to outlaw fighting breeds, yet the Staffy IS not banned (a fighting breed). It bans the Fila and Argentino which are not fighting breeds. So I don't have much faith in it. How many people were attacked by Dogo or Fila before being banned?
I don't live there but I don't really see a problem if the ban is lifted. There are large breeds and driven breeds not included in the ban. I also saw a UK program about aggressive dogs which featured owners and their aggressive, big, dogs (young owners wanting cool scary dogs), and a dog warden and the issue of these aggressive dogs, which were legal breeds to own.
That's still discrimination, unless all breeders and owners of all breeds are going to have to prove responsible. How can you control how they are bred? How should they be bred? Who is going to be expert on breeding practices.....politicians? Animal control? What different training methods do they require? Or what would be most effective? Managed? You really can't control any of this. Who will enforce and pay for this? In the US there are cities which have wasted millions on ineffective BSL. It is not completely enforceable in some cases. They can't/don't even enforce mandatory tags and rabies in my city. Most cities don't have the man power for added legislation.
I really don't need laws trying to tell me how I should breed my dogs either. I can't imagine how this would necessarily help anything. These types of people making laws and requirements typically know nothing about breeds.
BSL is done to appease some people, as a bandaide, in some cases false sense of security. We've had bans in some cities for decades but people still get bit by Pits and dog fighters are still busted in those cities/counties. I don't think irresponsible people doing illegal things care much about laws.
Reply With Quote
Bulldogs4Life
Dogsey Senior
Bulldogs4Life is offline  
Location: Pittsville, USA
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 257
Female 
 
22-03-2017, 01:20 AM
Originally Posted by Azz View Post
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.
I don't understand this statement at all. How many generations it takes to breed out a trait depends on the mode of inheritance, the gene pool you have at hand, the age of onset, there can be unknown epistatic genes, imprinting factors, ect. Knowing the genetic status of the dogs you are breeding from (not much out there on behavioral traits) can also have a big factor on how long it takes and how successful it is.

Breeding out polygenic aggression traits would take longer then 4 generations and there are different causes for aggression, there can be different types within a single breed, which is even more genes to deal with. Then there are other traits that can influence aggressive behavior tenacity, high drive, territorial behaivor, fear, ect. Aggression is not cut and dry, it is an innate canine behavior in various forms. Traits that people view as causing aggressive reactions include defense drive, fight drive and prey drive, of which do not seem to have a simple mode of inheritance.

While some people find these traits unappealing some breeders are breeding to keep them in a breed, true to type and even find them necessary. A breed shouldn't be "destroyed" because of irresponsible, careless owners. There are plenty of suitable breeds for those looking for a easier pet to own.

If people are trying to eliminate such traits they are not considering diversity or linkage either.

If I have a dominant trait I can eliminate it in a single generation or two.
If I have a recessive trait it can take awhile to weed it out without available genetic test. Could very well take more then 4 generations, it could pop up 10 generations later.
If I have a polygenic trait it can be hard to get rid of and many generations, if successful at all.

Of course selective breeding and remove or at least reduce traits and increase the frequency of others. It's not as simple as changing in 4 generations for many traits, which would still be a minimum of 8 years, probably more like 10-14 years for responsible breeders.
The same goes for wild animals. You can't generalize and say 8 generations. Some can be lost in 1 or 2 others many more. For something complex (like many behavioral traits) it can take awhile. In the Fox Farm breeding program it took 18 generations to breed out fear and aggressive behavior. That would translate to minimum of 36 years for a dogs bred at minimum age of 2 years old.

Originally Posted by Crysania View Post
And the same thing goes for the pit bull over here. They're medium sized dogs (generally 30-60 pounds) and yet you get these media stories about someone's "100 pound pit bull" attacking. Sorry but no. That's not a purebred pit bull. And it very likely is some sort of mastiff, maybe a mix, maybe not with a bit of pit bull in it. One time someone's two Presa Canarias killed a woman in an elevator. Original reports called them pit bulls. There are STILL places on the internet that cite the case as evidence that pit bulls are dangerous.
I hate that. A mastiff or big short haired mutt attacks, means my dogs are dangerous and should be banned. Not the same breed, but who cares, it attacked - kill the Pit Bulls.
Reply With Quote
Pitrescuemama
Dogsey Junior
Pitrescuemama is offline  
Location: United States
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 49
Female 
 
22-09-2017, 02:29 PM
Originally Posted by waggytail View Post
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?
You think legislation against the breed of dogs ensures public safety lol.
You really believe the criminals who fight, breed for aggression, abuse, neglect, and misuse the 4 breeds you would be very worried if the UK lifted the ban against, care about the laws? Criminals BREAK LAWS, you really believe banning a breed means there gone keep dreaming. Sorry all it really does is make them more valuable, and a thrill to own and fight to the low life's who do it!
I'm completely 100% against any form of BSL, how do we justify legislating an animal, who by LAW is our property and solely our responsibility! I personally hate the fact that any living creature is considered property but fact is that's how the law defines our beloved companions.
There for if you want legislation against dogs, ALL DOG OWNERS SHOULD BE LEGISLATED! Breed should have nothing to do with it! Its not only Powerful breeds being euthanized in shelters everyday! Being abused, neglected, bred for profit or worse fighting! In the wrong hands any dog can be dangerous!
Laws and harsh penalties against abuse, neglect, puppy mills, need to be in place. Humans need to be held accountable for the actions of there dogs! Dangerous dog laws that pertain to every dog, deeming a dog dangerous by its actions not breed, or appearance.
In my opinion supporting BSL in anyway makes you or anyone just as guilty of abusing the breed, as the criminals who do it intentionally.
Reply With Quote
Besoeker
Dogsey Veteran
Besoeker is offline  
Location: Dunstable UK
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,957
Male 
 
22-09-2017, 09:16 PM
I'm glad I have a collie.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 6 of 7 « First < 3 4 5 6 7 >


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