BSL do you agree?

[Kokay]

On the other hand, we are humanizing animals when we say BSL is 'discriminatory.' It's not like the dog knows there are laws against it living in a certain community.

This exactly! Walker, you beat me to it. I've been told that kenneling dogs is bad for them because, "How would you like it if you were stuck in a cage all day?" I hate those arguments. It's time to get past the belief that a dog feels what you do. They have a far smaller range of emotions than us (I'll find the article where I read that eventually) and will not feel hated because you give them a place where they belong. Dogs are creatures of habit. An outstanding amount of trainers agree on this. If they habitually have a place to sleep, away from their humans respectively (judging by pack dynamics again), then they're happy. It's humanizing the animals that puts us at risk.

[TikindiDragon]

There are certain breeds that were, indeed, bred for aggression. What they were used for shows that clearly. These breeds include, but are not limited to: Pit Bulls, German Shepherds, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Bulldogs, Boxers, Rottweilers, and Doberman Pinschers.

Actualy both GSDs and Rottweilers were originaly bred as herding dogs. They have not been selectively bred for agression, except by a few irresponsible people.

 

Likewise Pit Bulls and Bulldogs were actively culled if they showed any sign of agression towards humans. Agression towards other animals, yes, but agression towards their handlers meant they'd be instantly killed. The breeds were used for dog fighting, and it was imperative that the handlers could seperate them without risk to themselves.

 

Bad reps in certain breeds doesn't actualy mean that's what they were bred for

[Kokay]

Fair enough. *covers up embarrassing mix-up with Rottweilers* GSD's however are currently bred for police work etc. That mauling is the same to me as a pit bull mauling someone. A person is a person no matter how big or small or 'bad'.

 

Culling doesn't prevent the breed from becoming aggressive towards humans, however. Dogs aren't even smart enough to look at the culling and go, "Oh, that's what he did wrong. We better not do that." There's a humanization factor in that. All that culling could have done was protect the owner from that specific dog. You can't breed a certain aggression. That's not in the genes.

[dragon_mando]

Culling doesn't prevent the breed from becoming aggressive towards humans, however. Dogs aren't even smart enough to look at the culling and go, "Oh, that's what he did wrong. We better not do that." There's a humanization factor in that. All that culling could have done was protect the owner from that specific dog. You can't breed a certain aggression. That's not in the genes.

The culling isn't to show the other dogs what not to do though, it's to prevent the guilty dog's aggression from spreading into the gene pool. No humanization involved there.

[Kokay]

As I said earlier, there is no aggression gene. I don't see how culling prevents aggression seeping into the gene pool if there's no gene for aggression. There may be genes that cause chemical imbalances such as any disorder of the thyroids that cause the dog pain and or make it more aggressive than it would be naturally.

[dragon_mando]

Chemical imbalances that cause aggression are quite possibly hereditary though, just like bipolar in humans. Killing an aggressive dog may help future generations, but in the mean time it certainly prevents damage in the here and now.

[WereJace]

Temperament and behaviour is at least partially influenced by genetics, otherwise certain behavioural trends within breeds wouldn't exist (herding instinct, 'birdiness', dog aggression, etc.).

 

I wish there was a way to better manage who owns certain breeds and who doesn't. A properly conditioned pit bull is a gorgeous animal, but they are energetic, human-loving animals with a strong tendency towards dog aggression. Anyone getting a pit needs to know that and has to be prepared not only for the exercise requirements but the handling requirements as well.

 

Edit: And that BSL list is giving me a headache. Why do people insist on keeping livestock guardian dogs when they don't have a farm anyway? Boston Terriers? Springer Spaniels? PUGS? An animal that's more likely to have an asthma attack than draw blood?

Edited September 29, 2011 by WereJace

[Wookieinmashoo]

GSD's however are currently bred for police work etc.

They are also trained as guide dogs, so that doesn't mean squat. They are trained to be loyal and protect the officer, not attack without warning.

[Kokay]

Yes they are. But, we're getting off topic here by attacking the genetics etc. of breeds. We're supposed to be talking about the breed specific laws.

 

I think that specifically outlawing certain dog breeds based on track record, breed genetics, or simply the size is illegal. Simply speaking, it infringes upon the natural born right of Pursuit of Happiness. If you're happy to own a pit bull, then the government has no right to say you may not own one.

[TikindiDragon]

Culling doesn't prevent the breed from becoming aggressive towards humans, however. Dogs aren't even smart enough to look at the culling and go, "Oh, that's what he did wrong. We better not do that." There's a humanization factor in that. All that culling could have done was protect the owner from that specific dog. You can't breed a certain aggression. That's not in the genes.

Actualy it does. Because any dog showing agression towards humans is removed from the gene pool.

 

And, yes, you can breed certain agression. Just like you can breed dogs to go after certain types on animals. For instance flushing game birds (in springers), herding sheep (in collies), running down hares (in whippets).

 

There's no gene yet discovered that determines that kind of instinct. And yet that instinct is still there. Additionaly I wasn't aware that the entire canine genome had been mapped yet, so I'd love to know how you can conclusively say that there is no gene for certain things?

Edited September 29, 2011 by TikindiDragon

[7Deadly$ins]

Yes they are. But, we're getting off topic here by attacking the genetics etc. of breeds. We're supposed to be talking about the breed specific laws.

 

I think that specifically outlawing certain dog breeds based on track record, breed genetics, or simply the size is illegal. Simply speaking, it infringes upon the natural born right of Pursuit of Happiness. If you're happy to own a pit bull, then the government has no right to say you may not own one.

So, if I'm happy to own a tank and missiles, the government should have no right to tell me otherwise? The pursuit of happiness isn't in the Constitution.

 

Incidentally, you can indeed selectively breed for temperament. The Russian Fox experiment is a great example of this, and it's pretty much the same way we domesticated dogs in the first place.

[JaziandCo]

For some reason people think it's okay not to train a small dog properly, and that it's nothing to worry about if their small dog is growling at someone on thier doorstep.

This this this. Not going to be one of those "but little dogs bite too!" people, but this is something I hear a lot from owners of small dogs. A quote from my sister, who took care to painstakingly train any and all aggression out of her ex-bait apbt/amstaff before leaving her alone with my nephew, said this about the chihuahua that was foisted off on her last year.

 

"Buster always pulls so hard on the leash and sometimes he gets nasty with other dogs, but he's so little that he can't yank me down the street or do any damage."

 

People forget WHY we train dogs things. We don't train a large dog to walk nicely on a leash because we don't want to be pulled down the street. We train the dog to do so in order to have more control over the dog and more respect for when we give it a command. That's not something you should ignore, whether it's a 6lb chi or a 150+lb mastiff.

 

They are also trained as guide dogs, so that doesn't mean squat. They are trained to be loyal and protect the officer, not attack without warning.

 

Slightly deviating from breed bans, but I've had 3 GSDs and their mixes in my family in my 18 years of life. Their loyalty becomes their undoing, and sadly that's turning out to be the case with a lot of non-fighting dogs on the list. Shepherds are the dogs that are willing to fight off any intruder that may be harming their master, pack, or herd. They're also incredibly intelligent and eager to please. Once you get a command down, you've got it and the dog (providing it respects you) will do it the first time every time. That also means they can learn a variety of tricks... from sit to balance this on your head to sic 'em. And they take their commands seriously, which makes them good police dogs.

 

It becomes their undoing because people don't see the training behind the mauling. They just see how easily the officer gave a command and how instantly the dog sprang into action.

 

 

 

But yea, I've had my Shepherds, and I always admire Tikindi's (or is it Syaoran's? I always get the two of you confused) black GSD whenever I see pictures posted around here. My parents also have a chow mix, who while she has shown some typical bad chow trains, has also had those trained out of her behavior. She used to be very face sensitive, very scardy, and very reactive to things she wasn't accustomed to. Now she can have little kids wail on her just like the shepherds used to take, pull on her face, ears, etc, and she just rolls over for more.

 

My sister took in an apbt/amstaff litter that her neighbors were using as bait for fights after she called the neighbor out on it, and kept one of the puppies. Immediately they worked on desensitizing her, touching her all over, making sure they could have their faces at her food without a sound, etc. She's hyper, but she's the sweetest dog and people are always surprised when they see how she takes everything in stride.

 

And once I'm somewhere other than a small 3rd floor apartment, I'm going to have either shepherds or dobermans x3 Both dogs are beautiful, loyal, and loving, and I'd rather struggle through intense training to reap a good reward rather than get something small that no one cares to train anyway.

[Nine]

GSD's however are currently bred for police work etc. That mauling is the same to me as a pit bull mauling someone. A person is a person no matter how big or small or 'bad'.

No way! Police dogs are not bred or trained to maul people; they are bred for high drive and energy, I suppose. Watching videos of police dogs biting a covered arm in training is enough for anyone to believe that police officers employ dogs as four-legged maulers, I guess.

 

The training a police dog goes through is so far beyond "sic em, bring the bad guy down". They don't dare growl, snap, or even react even if provoked by a loud, aggressive assailant if their partner has not O.K'd it. Even when actively pursuing and tackling a target, they are uncannily good at not causing injuries to the person with their teeth. During gunfire, they silently crouch, duck and cover along with their partner and listen to every single last command given to them, 100% attention on nothing else.

 

The will power and self-control of trained police dogs is mind blowing, and one of the reasons I find bans / restrictions on certain breeds silly. Like most everyone else has voiced, the responsibility should be focused on the owner. I've met a few rottweiler police dogs too, and they are almost more patient and attentive than shepherds at times =) I strongly encourage anyone who thinks police dogs are overly aggressive and dangerous to look into some more info about them, it's pretty interesting.

[hazeh]

Of course pits are natural killers.

So are Dobermans.

And German Short Haired Pointers.

And Beagles.

And bassethounds.

And Whippets.

And Vizlas.

And Spaniels.

 

Oh, and cats. And snakes. And owls.

AND BASICALLY ANY ANY ANIMAL WITH A PREDATORY INSTINCT.

 

Jeez, it's like people forget they're DOGS. Ya' know, domesticated and evolved from wolves? Even if its a sweet animal, it still has the potential to be dangerous. OF COURSE.

 

However, does that mean it will? No, absolutely not. Like the Fox experiment that someone mentioned before, dogs have been selectively bred for certain traits. These traits have affected the gene pool by giving them puppy-like characteristics from wolves, like floppy ears, barking, and whining. All of those years of breeding made all these wonderful animals. Pits are amazing dogs, which superb talents in loving. Any dog could be; domestication pretty much set them up for it. Genetics play a big role in determining how any animal comes to be the way they are, no matter what "breed" they are. Of course, reoccurring genes in a breed often do carry through to many animals. Take Siamese, for instance. They're a very people-orientated cat breed, while other cats can be very independent and anti-social. And then there are Siamese who are anti-social, and other cat breeds that are as fully loving as Siamese reps. Pit bulls naturally have the equipment to be very strong and capable of inflicting a lot of damage, that's just how they're built. But that does NOT mean they are necessarily going to use that! Genetics don't determine an animal alone, and that has been proven by science. Environment and learning also impact an animal just about as much as its genetics do, which seems to be a big factor that people miss when going to shake their fingers at the Pit Bull breed.

Pits can either be loving or aggressive, determining on where they live, what circumstances they live in, who they live with, and what they learn in their young lives. That all affects how they are as adults, and the EXACT same thing goes for humans and any other animal out there.

 

A Pit Bull is a dog, just like a Beagle, a Golden, or a Dalmatian is a dog. It is not the wolf its ancestors were thousands of years ago, so don't treat it like one.

[Trikonasana]

In my opinion, BSL is a completely stupid idea.

 

As it was said before, dogs are by nature predatory animals - so even the little yappy toy dogs are descended from hunters, just like the larger breeds like Pit Bulls and Rottweilers. It isn't fair to say that one breed is worse than another just because by coincidence some people with the same breed of dogs didn't train their dogs properly.

 

In my experience dogs don't attack randomly (for the most part, unless they're wild and are still relying on natural predatory/defensive instincts); they only do so when scared or provoked.

 

And I have met some pretty vicious small dogs in my lifetime.

[TikindiDragon]

But yea, I've had my Shepherds, and I always admire Tikindi's (or is it Syaoran's? I always get the two of you confused) black GSD whenever I see pictures posted around here.

Not me I've got a golden Lab. Personaly I would have loved a GSD, but my other half wanted a short-haired dog. So we compromised on a Lab.

[hazeh]

As it was said before, dogs are by nature predatory animals - so even the little yappy toy dogs are descended from hunters, just like the larger breeds like Pit Bulls and Rottweilers. It isn't fair to say that one breed is worse than another just because by coincidence some people with the same breed of dogs didn't train their dogs properly.

Ye-p. It's the same idea that dogs can and will be destructive if left to their own devices and aren't trained properly. Some animals have the genetics that can make this more or less difficult, such that some dogs are super stubborn with training and others are easy as butter. There are traits that can be and are passed through breeds because of selective breeding- I'm going to refer back to that Fox experiment- and not all of those traits might have been desired or the ones that were bred for. Breeders can't select only ONE gene to pass to offspring. There has to be a compromise; a physical trait for another or for a personality trait, or vice versa. Somewhere along the line, there is going to be a recognizable trait in animals of the same breed. Like, for example, hyper activity among Weimereiners. Or skittishness in Chihuahuas.

 

What's becoming the problem is that people that aren't equipped to handle the less desirable traits often get those animals because those are the ones they can get their hands on, i.e., bad breeders.

I have no problems believing Pit Bulls were bred to be dangerous, their general physique supports that. However, mentality can also change the circumstances for these animals. This is a classic case of Nature vs Nurture. The natural build of the dog suggests prowess in physical attributes; most large dogs are like that, because most large dogs are bred for physical aggression of some kind. However, it's that much easier to breed for personality from larger dogs- Wolves are large. It would take extreme mutations to selectively breed for small canines. Those that are more than likely have something else mutated in their genes, perhaps in the brain, that gives them an imperfect chemical balance and thus aids to their "ankle biter" attitude. Since there is a larger variation of large dogs, it's highly unlikely that a larger dog has more aggressive tendencies when it's much easier to breed that part out of them (for instance, breeders breeding out the "no kill" instinct in herding dogs). Smaller dogs are more difficult because there is such a narrow selection to work with.

Where genetics lack or perhaps fall short of the mark, is where the environment and learning capacity come into play. An animal is never solely what its genes make it. It is a sentient creature that learns from its surroundings and adapts its behaviors accordingly. Not enough food? Be aggressive to ensure you're able to salvage some for yourself. Enough food? Let the others have some, you surely don't need any more! Harsh conditions? Fend for yourself, and anyone coming in the way of that is a threat to your safety and survival! Lots of love? I'm happy and surviving just fun, come at me bro! (with love, of course)

Dogs learn from their environment in different ways according to how their genetics wire them. The genetics are the foundation of the animal, but it's up to the environment to steer it into the path of adulthood. A low-quality animal (in terms of genetics!) can still be quite the lover if they receive enough information from a young age in terms of behavior. A high quality animal can just as easily become a terrifying (or terrified, depending on the creature) in conditions that aren't suitable to the animals needs.

 

Since pits are naturally friendly, sweet animals according to how they're bred, it's up to the environment to shape the rest of them.

 

 

Relevant to myself.

[SkyeDragon]

The one thing that my parents taught me was that if it has a mouth, then it can bite you.

 

How you approach a dog, whether it has been trained well or not, determines how it will react to you. You could have the nicest dog in the world that wouldn't harm a fly that bites someone because their tail got stepped on or scratches you in the face because you're messing around with it. (I have personal experience with the scratch in the face...)

 

When trained properly and treated with respect any dog can be the sweetest, most friendly dog in the world no matter what breed it is. Yet there are so many ing ards in the world today that just don't care about anyone but themselves.

 

And even if a dog was mistreated they can still turn out to be the sweetest dog in the world.

 

My family rescued a Yellow Lab a few years ago that had been neglected all her life. The previous owner said that she was 'seven,' 'house-trained,' and in the picture she looked white. She turned out to be closer to eight or nine, never been inside a house before, and she was yellow not white. Her fur was matted from neglect, her skin was raw where her old collar was, and she didn't even know how to play catch. When that dog got to our house, she had the sweetest personality that made me wonder why those people never paid her any attention. It made me so mad, but at the same time I was happy because she was with us. Though she later had medical complications and we had to put her down about six months ago.

(Rest In Peace Dixie)

[7Deadly$ins]

In general, little dogs are awful when they suffer from Little Dog Syndrome. The only dogs I've ever had were Bichons. Two of them didn't work out, but one was the sweetest dog I've ever met. Now we have a dog a little larger than she was (the shelter claims she was a bichon but I don't buy it) and she has all sort of random aggressions. She can be very sweet, but bizarre things set her off.

 

What she needs is to be trained. But she isn't my dog and I don't have time to do it. No one has worked with her training wise at all, and frankly my mom leaves most of her care to my seven-year-old brother who doesn't know the first thing about training dogs or what they need.

[Syaoransbear]

But yea, I've had my Shepherds, and I always admire Tikindi's (or is it Syaoran's? I always get the two of you confused) black GSD whenever I see pictures posted around here.

 

Thank you so much! There's not a lick of aggression in my dog despite his breed, so BSL's really kill me. He's the friendliness dog I know, even to strangers.

[MedievalMystic]

The problem with dog behaviour is people

 

This. 100%.

[Keriel]

My nan has an Australian shepherd. he holds your hand in her mouth, she hasn't killed anything even though she has caught birds and held them in her mouth. the only time i've seen her snap is at other dogs if she's hurt or trying to sort out whose boss. and a short sharp growl from any person watching has her rolling submissively on her back in apology

 

she's forever nudging and begging for attention. and shes so gentle. Every Australian shepherd i have met has been the same. they may chase sheep, but that is what they're meant to do and it's not that hard to train it out of them either. so why is this sweet patient dog breed, on the dangerous dog list???

[isstiautng]

No I don't agree with this. The dogs owner should be the one's responsible, not the dog breed.

 

I'm really put out that I can't get a pit bull terrier, I live in Australia and breeding them or importing has been banned.

 

I've known more smaller dogs that are more aggressive than the so-called dangerous breeds.

[stagazer_7]

No, I don't agree with this. It is the responsibility of the owner to get informed about the breed he/she is getting, enable it the training and socialization from an early age and treat it with love and kindness - do that and every dog will be a sweet, happy and well adjusted animal.

[JaziandCo]

Thank you so much! There's not a lick of aggression in my dog despite his breed, so BSL's really kill me. He's the friendliness dog I know, even to strangers.

That's pretty much how it was for my family when we had our girls. They were just big, goofy, happy, dogs who were incredibly patient with my sisters and I growing up. But the majority of people couldn't see them for that.

 

Princess was GSD/Dalmation, Pooch was GSD/Lab, and Queenie was purebred GSD, though we're thinking she was probably from a backyard breeder seeing as she had health problems from the get go. All three of them ranged from mostly black to nearly all black, but none quite as handsome as your boy ;3

 

Sorry Tiki =P Since I only occasionally lurk here I get a couple people mixed up. I know one of you is the go-to for cats and the other has that pretty dog, but I always get you mixed.