-
I meet far more growling, snappy, aggressive and unfriendly small and furry dogs that I do bull or guardian breeds
It's a risk assessment though, an unfriendly, small, furry dog isn't capable of ripping off your arms
I'm not aware of BSL working anywhere
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2012/06/29/injuryprev-2012-040389.full.pdf+html
" A total of 16 urban and rural jurisdictions with pit-bull bans were identified. At the provincial level, there was a significant reduction in DBIH (dog-bite injury hospitalisations) rates from the pre-BSL to post-BSL period"People who want status dogs for the wrong reasons will find a way to have them, and move on to another breed if necessary.
Sure, a bad owner can make any dog bad but there's a reason they're choosing those specific breeds right now, because they have the highest potential for damage.
This is what worries me about "exotic" breeds like the XL Bully - bred for looks with very little understanding of temperament, sold to vain people with £5K to spare and no experience of owning and looking after a dog
For what it's worth the American Bully is literally a Pitbull, the United Kennel Club even allows you to cross register as either. https://www.ukcdogs.com/docs/registration-forms/breed-transfer-american-bully.pdf
And I'd agree that it's bad when people don't know what they're getting or how to properly look after it and that's actually the crux of the whole issue in my mind. The longer people keep denying bull terrier breeds past the longer they'll be walking around unaware they're got a hand grenade on the end of their lead.all data on dog bites and attacks is unreliable, not least because most people are incapable of identifying a pit bull properly
This is such a terrible argument that came out of one study from a shelter in the USA. For one they specifically chose really obscure, highly mixed dogs for the study. And in fact it works against the "pitbulls don't exist" crowd because it shows people would not chalk an attack up to one if they couldn't recognise it, a lot of the results were people not guessing pitbull mix when it was and a lot of bull mixes in shelters in the USA are labeled as Labrador mix or just "mixed breed". Just google any shelter's website.
I would bet a lot of money that a significant proportion of those 284 were not pits
This is another part of the cognitive dissonence. People love to say Pitbulls don't really exist because they aren't one specific breed but 4 different ones then also say "that dog wasn't a pit when it doesn't fit their one narrow criteria of what one is despite looking and acting like one.
The fact that I came close to losing a pup that is not one of the four breeds included in the DDA
I appreciate that losing your pup would be awful and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, however I'm just going to say it. You got a puppy from someone who's apparently a breeder yet had an unexpected litter, charged you very little money for it, had one returned for being aggressive, and has unknown provinence and you're not at all interested to know if it may have part of a banned or dangerous breed in it.
Sumo-
and you're not at all interested to know if it may have part of a banned or dangerous breed in it.
Maybe i'm getting lost in all this but are you saying that regardless of the DDA check verifying the dog as safe, the owner should still take a DNA test to check if there are any banned or dangerous breeds in the dogs DNA? Are you also saying that it's important for an owner to know how much of a risk there dog might be (due to breed) regardless of the dogs temperament? If a dog is well behaved and has shown no signs of aggression over an extended period do you think an experienced owner should put in new safety measures (muzzle) if they found out it had a dangerous/banned breed in them? Genuine questions, not here to argue.
We've been considering a DNA test to see if there's any red flags but the advice from our animal behaviourist is that our dogs behaviour is not breed specific but rather a result of her poor treatment and focusing on the breed would not be helpful at this point.
jono84
I didn't really want to get drawn into this, but since I started it by posting up what happened this week, here are my thoughts.
I agree with @Sumo that not all breeds are the same and what they were orginally bred for is important in assessing the risk certain dogs pose to people or other animals (although I'm pretty sure this is no longer the case with the British Bulldog...). Unless all dogs with a fighting, hunting and guarding past (Sharpeis, GSDs, Rotts, Dobes, Wheatens, Bull Mastiffs, etc.) are banned, then we are reliant on knowdledge of the breed and traits and responsible ownership, something that is in short supply with all breeds. Anecdotally, I meet far more growling, snappy, aggressive and unfriendly small and furry dogs that I do bull or guardian breeds.
The 1991 DDA is a perfect example poorly thought through knee-jerk legislation drafted by people with no experience of the issue on which they were legislating. They focused on four breeds (only one of which was present in any significant numbers in the UK at the time, and two of which were not thought to be here at all) none of which were recognised by the KC so that there would be no organised resistence and lobbying. I'm not aware of BSL working anywhere and the DDA has not been effective in preventing tragic attacks. People who want status dogs for the wrong reasons will find a way to have them, and move on to another breed if necessary. When I was a kid, Alsations/GSDs were the "devil dogs", then it was Rotts, then Dobes and so it goes. This is what worries me about "exotic" breeds like the XL Bully - bred for looks with very little understanding of temperament, sold to vain people with £5K to spare and no experience of owning and looking after a dog.
I think there should be restrictions and legislation in place, but not the DDA, which determines whether a dog should be destroyed on the basis of a set of measurements, set out in the orginal legislation when no one knew how to properly identify the four breeds concerned. There are countless examples of dogs with no pit in them (and often with a lot of lab) being destroyed under the act. This is not what was intended, is clearly wrong and doesn't protect the public. I'm afraid I don't know what the alternative is, but it shouldn't be impossible for legislators to properly consult and draw up something much better.
I won't gon into too much detail on @Stonehedge 's data above, other than to say that all data on dog bites and attacks is unreliable, not least because most people are incapable of identifying a pit bull properly. The dog in the graphic is certainly not an APBT. The BBC reports of the recent fatality in Liverpool (?) quoted a bystander/witness (presumably an expert, or why else quote them...) as describing the dog as looking like a pit bull or staffy (two very different looking dogs), yet it turned out to be an XL Bully. That said, I'm absolutely sure that pits top the list, as much because of who owns them and why, but I would bet a lot of money that a significant proportion of those 284 were not pits.
Bottom line - different breeds pose different risks (not just because of character, but also because of their physicality), idiots own dogs (no dog, whatever the breed, should be off-lead in public without a reliable recall), risk needs to be managed, the DDA hasn't worked. The fact that I came close to losing a pup that is not one of the four breeds included in the DDA, makes me feel even more strongly about this.
It is worth noting that the DDA goes beyond BSL, yet this tends to be what the police focus on. I would have more faith if I saw more action on dog behavior that is also covered by the act.
Over and out.