-
Was talking about this with MrsDeth and are both in agreement that the DDA is basically bullshit. "any" dog can be dangerous, and labelling a breed or breed "type" dangerous is ridiculous
It's surely based on the balance of probabilities though.
Any dog can be dangerous
There are no breeds (DDA included) where a dog is guaranteed to be dangerous simply because of being that breedTo claim otherwise is obviously ridiculous
Given what certain breeds have historically been bred for, there is a greater chance that any given dog in that subset of breeds (caveat, breeds aren't clear-cut) may tend be dangerous. That chance will be reduced with an experienced owner.
But DDA is an arbitrary line based on a balance of probabilities. It can only ever be that, and it'll be unfair to some dogs and to some owners. But I don't think that means that the notion of a line is wrong, and I'm not sure what a reasonable and pragmatic alternative is.
I definitely don't know enough about the stats behind how the line is drawn, but I'm pretty comfortable with the idea of the line needing to be drawn somewhere (and accepting that it'll not be fair to some)
You are reading a single comment by @duncs and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
duncs
Yeah, I was only thinking for curiosity reasons, rather than "oh no, my lovely little puppy is part hyena, how will I sleep at night!"
Was talking about this with MrsDeth and are both in agreement that the DDA is basically bullshit.
"any" dog can be dangerous, and labelling a breed or breed "type" dangerous is ridiculous