Jump to content
Keriel

BSL do you agree?

Recommended Posts

I am not in favor of adding more governmental meddling than there already is, so no, I would not support forcing everyone who wants a dog to be checked out by a bureaucracy that would be a perfect breeding ground for petty, power-tripping nobodies to get their kicks by making perfectly able people jump through hoops to own a dog.

Which is why I sort of let go of the idea I'd had. Sadly there's just too much room for it to fail, or for it to just be stupid. I walk my dogs with a choke chain and I smack their butts when they do something idiotic like decide that ripping apart my shoes in front of me is a good idea. Positive reinforcement and clicker training are nice but it doesn't work in every situation for every dog, and if dog owners where forced to train their dogs using a specific method I think I'd fail across the board. =B

 

The problem with relying on people to make educated decisions is frankly that they don't. There are quite a few couples that say "well we knew about xyz typical bad behavior but thought we could handle it". Even when people learn about the breed they're interested in, it seems that the majority are incapable of judging their ability to train away certain behaviors. Then you get people who complain because their husky pulls on the leash, or because their GSD has separation anxiety, or because their JRT acts like a squirrel on crack even though they KNEW about the issue BEFORE they got the dog.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what would happen.

 

I know that not everyone will avail themselves of the information out there, though I think that with the Internet, more people actually do educate themselves. Twenty years ago, there were books and magazines about dogs, but a library might not have several reputable books on the breed someone was interested in. Now, people have a wealth of information available, plus reputable breeders and forums and mailing lists to learn about this dog and that dog. I think it's getting better. Of course, nothing is quite the same as experience.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Ideally i would like no legislation at all. but the fact is there are people out there who have no idea what they are doing and simply won't do the research before getting a dog (my stupid neighbor as an example. half a mind to steal that dog before it goes bad)

 

and i heard of wolf blood being bred in successfully on two different documentaries. i never said it was a quick and easy fix. committed people would be the only ones who could do it. it takes years to create a decent new pedigree. treat this as a new breed project (like savanah cat, or bengal cat. both derived from wild cat breeds) it would take years. and even if it could work will never happen because people are too scared to allow it.

Share this post


Link to post

I once got bitten on the thigh by a dog when I was 9. Said dog was a Yorkshire-Mix. It took me three moths to recover from the deep wound. =w=

 

Shows how even a seemingly small, harmless breed can be such a trouble. I've seen Staffies and Pit Bulls. Most I have seen are nowhere near the stereotype they are associated with.

Share this post


Link to post
Shows how even a seemingly small, harmless breed can be such a trouble. I've seen Staffies and Pit Bulls. Most I have seen are nowhere near the stereotype they are associated with.

Actualy it's quite funny how stereotypes differ from country to country. Here in the UK Pit Bulls are banned by the Dangerous Dogs Act, yet Staffies are regarded as ideal family pets....

Share this post


Link to post

Just thought I'd give a little _bump_

I'm very much against BSL. A Pittbull can be as sweet as cupcakes, while a poodle can be killer

Share this post


Link to post
in some places there's already restrictions.

 

i don't mind owners having to get special licenses to own some breeds such as pitties, because they were bread to fight. but to ban them all together and kill them on site when they have committed no crime is wrong.

Pit Bulls were actually originally bred to act as nannies.

 

user posted image

Share this post


Link to post

This really makes me mad. I hate discriminating against animals because of what people have turned them into. Like people have said, the so-called "evil dogs" can be sweet and the "nice dogs" can be mean. Even if they're bred for a particular attitude, behavior is influenced by environment as well. I've worked with rescued dogs and rescued horses- it's the same for predator or prey.

 

And stereotyping breeds isn't fair. Individuals vary as much as people do.

 

As for ownership, if a dog is of a breed that has been genetically bred to be aggressive, then the owner should realize that it's a possibility that the animal will be difficult to handle. Genetics can come into play. People need to do research and figure out what their capabilities are. But they should keep an open mind- if they meet a dog that they really connect with, they shouldn't just turn it away because of breed. It may be just what they're looking for.

 

I don't think it's the government's place to go in and ban breeds, or require people to take classes or anything before owning a particular breed. People just need to use their brains for once and be practical. (Unfortunately, not enough people do that.)

Share this post


Link to post

Every time I see this post (list) I laugh. Let me just list the dogs on this list I've had experience with.

 

8. American Husky

14. Australian Cattle Dog

15. Australian Shepherd

22. Boston Terrier

24. Boxer

37. English Mastiff

44. German Shepherd

45. Golden Retriever

47. Great Dane

48. Great Pyrenees

55. Labrador Retriever

66. Saint Bernard

 

Let's list the dogs I have or have owned.

Golden Retriever (had a purebred, now have a mix)

Labrador Retriever (had a purebred, now have two mixes. One half golden, one half newfoundland.)

Great Pyrenees (Have two)

 

Of those three breeds, the only one I can slightly understand are the Pyrenees. These dogs are very primitive, they're also very big. Our male would never intentionally hurt someone, but our female is slightly aggressive. She's not a risk to people (who aren't threatening her or her property or her family), but I can see how she could be perceived as one.

 

As for Labs and Goldens? Hah. Hah hah. They're about as aggressive as my grandmother.

Share this post


Link to post

No way, Aussies are on the list too? My dog's an aussie/border collie mix and he's the sweetest goofball ever. Very hyper, but he'd never hurt anyone. He even gives hugs.

 

Funny, I don't see chihuahuas on the list. I've been attacked by those little censorkip.gifs more than once. (Not that I'm for any breed being added... I'm sure there are sweet chihuahuas somewhere.)

Share this post


Link to post
Funny, I don't see chihuahuas on the list. I've been attacked by those little censorkip.gifs more than once. (Not that I'm for any breed being added... I'm sure there are sweet chihuahuas somewhere.)

Yeah, it must be said the kinds of dog that actually have the worst bite-rates (anecdotally among meter readers anyway) are Yorkshire Terriers and Cocker Spaniels... neither of which are on the list. It does just make you wonder how much attention they pay to how dangerous these dogs really are.

 

Although, incidently, the problem with most small dogs is that their owners don't train them very well. Things the owner of a Lab or Rottie wouldn't tolerate in their dog are excused as 'funny' when the dog in question only weights 3lbs. It's the whole root of 'small dog syndrome', and one of the reasons small dogs are the ones we're most wary of.

Share this post


Link to post

Rottweilers!??!? sad.gif How could they? My neighbor has a Rottweiler and it is so nice and has never tried to bite anyone. When it was a puppy it was so silly and every five steps it would flop down on the ground.

 

 

Stupid people, next they will be saying that rabbits evil or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Rottweilers!??!? sad.gif How could they? My neighbor has a Rottweiler and it is so nice and has never tried to bite anyone. When it was a puppy it was so silly and every five steps it would flop down on the ground.

 

 

Stupid people, next they will be saying that rabbits evil or something.

Rabbits are evil. They bite and scratch, and when they scream it's like the devil himself is yelling.

 

But yeah, little dogs scare me. If I ever had a little dog I'd have the same standards for it that my dogs have (which are very high, my puppy Thor will sit and stay indefinitely until I release him. longest time was probably 20 minutes).

Share this post


Link to post

Firstly, I just want to say this as a disclaimer of sorts. I think that a really big contributing factor to a dog's temperament, is the way that the dog is raised and the environment that it is brought up in.

 

However, I don't think that this is the be all and end all.

 

I live in a tight knit community with a LOT of dogs. I've got two myself and visit the dog park most days and it's always packed. There are a lot of dogs around here. I've got King Charles Cavaliers myself and I've met a very big number of those in my time, close to 100 I guess, and been pretty involved with probably a quarter or so of that. Out of all the cavvies I've ever met, every single one of them has been sweet and loving. I've never been so much as looked at funny by one. They approach me, roll over, want their tummy scratched, etc. Extremely docile. This is completely irrelevant to their owners. Some of them have had pretty crap owners, I've got to say, who don't give them enough attention, etc.

 

One of my own pups (a cavvie) was stolen and for two months before I got him back, he was heavily abused and mistreated. He came back with puncture holes through his ear where another dog had almost ripped his entire ear off and just in really bad shape. Despite that abuse, he is still the sweetest pup you'll ever meet. A bit cautious, but very, very docile.

 

The reason I'm talking about all this and haven't gotten quite on topic yet is because I hear a lot of people talk about the nature vs nurture argument when it comes to debates like this, saying that there's no such thing as a nice breed vs a nasty breed, to put things pretty bluntly. In a lot of cases, I hear people who have vicious dogs saying, "oh yes, but it's ok, because he was mistreated" and kind of act as though their dog has a right of passage, or so to speak, when it comes to aggression because they haven't been in the most favourable positions in their lives. Yes, that's true. To an extent. My own pup was abused and during the process of getting him settled back into home, I've met a number of other people through our vet with similar circumstances, and the thing that I've noted is that some breeds simply tend to act differently to that kind of abuse than others, and unfortunately, everything that I've seen just confirms the stereotypes.

 

Similarly, in my life, I've had a number of dogs attack my own, and in some cases myself, and every single one of them has been a pit-bull related dog. This is something that I really don't like to say because I'd love to believe that there's no such thing as a dangerous breed and that it's entirely up to the individual dog and its family, but this is my own experience. My own dogs are very small and it's actually gotten to the point where I'll leave the dog park as soon as a pit-bull comes in because there have been a really high number just in my area who have been prone to attacking others. There is one German Shepherd in the area that's known for aggression, but about five of the regular pit-bulls (which makes up half in the area) have attacked friends'/neighbours' dogs.

 

Like I said, this is really not something that I want to believe, and in fact something that I didn't until, as an adult, I got my own dogs and kind of began to experience things first hand. There are certain breeds that I've come to expect certain things of. For example, I've noticed that a lot of the Jack Russells that I've come into contact with have "little dog syndrome" and will try to intimidate mine, but ultimately won't attack. Similarly, there are breeds that I've noted as being extremely patient with my dogs while they were excited little pups, and breeds who weren't so patient.

 

And I've noticed the same with certain breeds and aggression and they fit all the stereotypes that are the basis for legislation such as this.

 

Now I'm not saying that it's impossible for pit-bulls etc. to be lovely dogs. I've heard very, very touching stories about ones who are incredibly close to children and go out of their ways to protect them, just like I'm sure there are cavaliers out there who aren't as pleasant as mine (even if my vet tells me he's never in 30 years met one who's so much as growled at him).

 

But my own experience has shown an overwhelming amount of support for these stereotypes and as such, I unfortunately do have to agree that legislation like this is a necessary precaution. A lot of the breeds on that list I can't speak for specifically because I only know a couple of examples personally, which I don't think is enough to make a fair judgement off, so I can't really speak about my opinions on this in a more specific nature. But the fundamental base of what they're trying to do, I do agree with.

 

I hope I haven't offended anyone. I'm incredibly sorry if I have. If you've got a lovely dog that happens to be a "dangerous breed", then I wouldn't think any less of them, and kudos to you for raising a lovely little pup! But I believe that in many cases, generalisations occur for a reason, and they can't just be cast aside as irrelevant.

 

Also, my massive apologies that this has gotten so long. I didn't mean it to when I started. xd.png I just got carried away.

 

Edit: And so this doesn't sound so serious and heavy... HERE! Have some emotes! cool.gifsmile.giflaugh.gifbiggrin.gif

Edited by StormWizard212

Share this post


Link to post

Rabbits are evil. They bite and scratch, and when they scream it's like the devil himself is yelling.

 

... I personally have a pet rabbit who does not do this, and when a rabbit screams it usually means that they are injured really badly, might want to check out the owner of this rabbit to make sure he or she isn`t abusing it ?

 

 

 

Btw, I have met dogs that yip and bite.. it`s the owners fault not the breed!

Edited by zara

Share this post


Link to post

@ stormwizard

 

I'm not sure about in the US, but there is an unfortunate problem in the UK of certain kinds of people buying certain kinds of dog to 'look hard'. Those are the people that actively train or encourage their dogs to be agressive because they like the image of a dog straining on the leash and bearing it's teeth. And 3 guesses the kind of breeds they go for. Yup, the bully breeds, and the big black & tan dogs.

 

As you said, it's the way a dog is raised and treated that turns it into the adult it is. And if you've got people who are encouraging agression in their dogs from an early age... the result is dogs that will attack other dogs .

 

None of us are saying there aren't bad dogs out there. There absolutely are. But 9 times out of 10 the problem is with the owner not the dog. Sometimes they just don't understand how to train and lead a dog (see small dog syndrome), and sometimes it's deliberate. Regardless the problem is not actually the breed itself, but the kind of people buying it.

Share this post


Link to post

The reason I'm talking about all this and haven't gotten quite on topic yet is because I hear a lot of people talk about the nature vs nurture argument when it comes to debates like this, saying that there's no such thing as a nice breed vs a nasty breed, to put things pretty bluntly. In a lot of cases, I hear people who have vicious dogs saying, "oh yes, but it's ok, because he was mistreated" and kind of act as though their dog has a right of passage, or so to speak, when it comes to aggression because they haven't been in the most favourable positions in their lives. Yes, that's true. To an extent. My own pup was abused and during the process of getting him settled back into home, I've met a number of other people through our vet with similar circumstances, and the thing that I've noted is that some breeds simply tend to act differently to that kind of abuse than others, and unfortunately, everything that I've seen just confirms the stereotypes.

I'd agree with you that it's not entirely nurture. But I am going to say that nurture is a contributing factor. You can't simply say that a dog is sweet because of it's breed. I spend a lot of time with dogs, labs in particular. For the most part, labs tend to be hyperactive and excitable. However I have met labs that are not hyperactive, that don't have a high play drive (only a couple, but still).

 

Similarly, in my life, I've had a number of dogs attack my own, and in some cases myself, and every single one of them has been a pit-bull related dog.

 

You've never had your dog threaten a Pyrenees then tongue.gif. We have firmly drilled the "No" voice command into Bear's head, and she still goes after other dogs some times. She never hurts them, she just shows them she's dominant.

 

I've noticed that a lot of the Jack Russells that I've come into contact with have "little dog syndrome" and will try to intimidate mine, but ultimately won't attack. Similarly, there are breeds that I've noted as being extremely patient with my dogs while they were excited little pups, and breeds who weren't so patient.

 

And I've noticed the same with certain breeds and aggression and they fit all the stereotypes that are the basis for legislation such as this.

Agreed that the majority of dogs in a breed will tend to follow a stereotype. Above it came off sound as if I was disagreeing about the stereotypes completely. It seems to me as if we're in pretty close agreement, though I lean more towards nurture having a bigger impact than you do and stereotypes not being so strict.

 

Edit: And so this doesn't sound so serious and heavy... HERE! Have some emotes!  cool.gif  smile.gif  laugh.gif  biggrin.gif

Yay emotes!

 

... I personally have  a pet rabbit who does not do this, and when a rabbit screams it usually means that they are injured really badly, might want to check out the owner of this rabbit to make sure he or she isn`t abusing it ?

The biting and scratching was from when I had rabbits. One of them really was evil. The screaming was a joke.

 

Edit: Sometimes the forums don't like me. This is one of those times.

Edited by kiffren

Share this post


Link to post
While both are strong dogs, pit bulls have their strength in their jaws.

Pits actually don't have a super strong jaws. Rotts have the distinction of the most powerful bite.

 

Personally I think BSL is a load. If anything, there should be stricter laws on the owners. People who mistreat and abuse animals should be locked away and not allowed to own pets. It makes me sad to go the the humane society and see so many wonderful pitties sitting there for months on end because of the bad rap they've gotten in the press. If I didn't live in an apartment, I'd own one. In fact, as soon as I'm able to rent a house - I'm gonna go adopt a pit.

Share this post


Link to post

Dog aggression has nothing to do with people aggression. Who cares if those pitbulls attack someone's dog, that has nothing to do with how safe they are for people. Plenty of huskies and greyhounds will kill small dogs because of prey drive, but they aren't considered dangerous because they don't attack people. And on the rare occasions that a pitbull showed aggression to you, that may have been because you possibly had your dog with you and it was redirected aggression. In my experience, most strays I've encountered(although very, very few) have acted aggressively because they are lost and scared and they have no idea who I am, or because I have my dog with me and he's huge and intimidating.

 

I believe that nature gives the guidelines for how the animal will turn out, and nurture is what determines where in those guidelines the animal's temperament will fall. Sometimes the scope of those guidelines is small or it's all in the aggression area and no amount of nurture will change that dog. There are dogs that no matter how you raise it, they will be always be aggressive. If you spend even a little time researching dog breeding practices you'll realize that genetics are far more important than nurture when it comes to temperament. Those workingline german shepherds police use weren't just random puppies they raised a certain way, they came from specific working lines and not just some backyard breeder whose pups wouldn't make the cut no matter how they were raised, unless there was a genetic fluke that somehow produced an outstanding dog. Genetics are the entire reason why breeds act differently from each other, so I don't know why people put so much stock into nurture.

 

But I still think BSL is stupid, especially considering how many places still allow people to own large exotic animals like tigers and lions. Ontario has banned pitbulls, yet with the right paperwork you can own a tiger. Real logical.

 

It's not always the owners fault if a dog is aggressive or skittish or fearful or whatever. Often, it's the breeders fault. That's why backyard breeders are the scum of the earth. They destroy the reputations of good breeds and introduce bad genes to the gene pool with their genetically inferior pups.

Share this post


Link to post

I own a great dane and a pit bull mix. Both breeds are restricted in numerous cities. Obviously, I disagree with BSL.

 

As proven in many cities that have enacted BSL, it does little to nothing to lower the overall dog bite statistics. It simply passes the buck on to other breeds that haven't been banned yet.

 

Popularity breeds greed, which means masses of idiots peddle poorly bred dogs with horrid temperaments (which, are INDEED passed on to the puppies) out at the flea markets or on Craigslist or other shady means to the first person who hands over the cash.

 

Irresponsible people will always be the culprit, regardless of the breed of dog they choose to own/breed. Legislation will never give an irresponsible person ethics or morals. They can legislate to the moon and back and Billy Bob Jerkface will still be a Jerkface who doesn't properly contain his human aggressive dog. No Job James will still make money selling his human aggressive dogs to people like Billy Bob Jerkface with little concern over what happens to the puppies once they leave. Laws and legislation will not suddenly make those types of people ethical, and they are the biggest problem.

Edited by danegrrrl

Share this post


Link to post

I'd agree with you that it's not entirely nurture. But I am going to say that nurture is a contributing factor. You can't simply say that a dog is sweet because of it's breed. I spend a lot of time with dogs, labs in particular. For the most part, labs tend to be hyperactive and excitable. However I have met labs that are not hyperactive, that don't have a high play drive (only a couple, but still).

 

And since you have brought up labs, I will relate my own personal experiences with them. I actually have met more vicious labs than vicious pit-breeds. There used to be a pack of aggressive labs next door that bit more than one of my family, and gave us expensive vet bills when they hurt our own dogs(and no, not all of the attacks on us were when our dogs were present). They aren't around now, but now there is ANOTHER aggressive lab living near us. He hasn't bitten anyone yet, though he has come very close(to the point of his teeth brushing the back of my leg, if I wasn't wearing baggy pants he might HAVE bitten me). There have been other instances too, though I won't go into all of them.

 

My point is, personal experiences do not prove anything. By my experiences, labs are far more dangerous than pits ever are. I still don't hold anything against labs, for I have met many sweethearts as well as the aggressive ones I have mentioned.

Edited by Nectaris

Share this post


Link to post

Part of the owner problem, I think, isn't just an owner training a dog to be mean. I had a friend in college that was simply amazing with animals in a horse whisperer type way. She had a very well trained female rottweiler. She got a 2nd male rotty that she intended to raise the same way. But the make was too agressive. He'd "play" by doing things like grabbing the females neck and flipping her. So she was concerned he couldn't be trained out of it and might eventually hurt one or both of them. So, she donated him to a police force to be a guard dog. He just wasn't a good house pet. But at least she recognized that and didn't try to force him to be a place he shouldn't be.

 

I would, personally, love a BSL that covers any yappy dog that barks for 2 or more hours in the morning 3-4 days a week. And their owners. sleep.gif

Share this post


Link to post

@ stormwizard

 

I'm not sure about in the US, but there is an unfortunate problem in the UK of certain kinds of people buying certain kinds of dog to 'look hard'. Those are the people that actively train or encourage their dogs to be agressive because they like the image of a dog straining on the leash and bearing it's teeth. And 3 guesses the kind of breeds they go for. Yup, the bully breeds, and the big black & tan dogs.

That's something I was actually going to talk about in my post as well, but it was already kind of long enough. tongue.gif From my experiences in my own neighbourhood, there are a lot of lovely people who have dogs that have somehow turned out aggressive, even though from talking to them, they seem to be doing everything right.

 

There's this one woman, she's probably in her 30s or so, dotes on her pit and really does everything the way she should, but he's attacked mine a couple of times now. I do think a lot does have to do with the way a dog is raised, yes, but I also think there's more at play than just that, unfortunately. :/ That's just my personal opinion though from my own experience. I appreciate that other people might have vastly different experiences themselves, but it's all I've got to draw off myself.

 

Agreed that the majority of dogs in a breed will tend to follow a stereotype.

I certainly agree that nurture does play a part, so I hope my post didn't come across as though I were completely disregarding that. But I also believe that certain types of dogs (perhaps from their historical treatment as a breed) tend to react to things, particularly abuse, differently. The historical context might be an interesting one, actually, since perhaps certain breeds have adapted to deal with things in different manners, depending on if they are typically working dogs, lap dogs, etc. I dunno. tongue.gif

 

But I definitely don't want people to think that I'm saying nurture has nothing to do with it. The way you treat your dog has massive impacts on it. Separation anxiety in dogs is a huge issue that you've got to be careful about when you're getting a brand new little friend.

 

Who cares if those pitbulls attack someone's dog, that has nothing to do with how safe they are for people.

If you feel that way, then you mustn't have pets yourself. sad.gif I'd care more about a dog attacking my pups than if it were to attack me. In fact, I've had to put myself between another dog and mine before. I wasn't hurt or anything, but if it was at the cost of saving them, then I'd happily take it. I am a fully grown man, my dogs weigh 5 kilos each.

 

Plenty of huskies and greyhounds will kill small dogs because of prey drive, but they aren't considered dangerous because they don't attack people.

Here, you can actually file a complaint with your local council if another dog attacks you or your pet. I don't know an awful lot about it, but I believe there's a "strikes" system in place. You get listed as having a dangerous dog if it's attacked, then you've got to put some safety measures in place, and if it happens again you can face legal action. I believe? I could be wrong.

 

I believe that nature gives the guidelines for how the animal will turn out, and nurture is what determines where in those guidelines the animal's temperament will fall.

This pretty much sums up what I was trying to say, but in a much more compact and precise way. tongue.gif Definitely agree.

 

Since Vhale mentioned owners and training, that's something else I'd like to touch on for a second. I've had a couple of cases of running into people who are aware that they've got aggressive dogs who'll openly attack if not restrained, and yet they don't take adequate safety measures in my opinion. If you know that your dog is dangerous and you want to take it out in public, I strongly believe that it's your responsibility to muzzle it, have it on a tight leash and make sure that it's not going anywhere near anyone.

 

Why I say this is because I was recently out walking my dogs along the footpath. And, you know, footpaths aren't that big. If you're walking up one way and someone's walking down the other, you're going to bump into each other. tongue.gif And I was yelled at by this guy telling me to get the hell out of the way because his dog was dangerous. I was kind of taken aback, since if you're walking your dog up the footpath, you know you're going to run into other dogs, especially in an area like mine that's got a dense population of them.

 

I live near a fenced-in dog park too and recently I was about to go in there to let my dogs have a run when this woman came up to me and said, "Sorry, please don't come in or my dog will probably tear yours in half." If you know your dog is like that, you shouldn't be letting them loose in public places. I just find it shockingly irresponsible. I mean, what if she hadn't noticed that I was about to come in and couldn't warn me?

 

My point being that often in cases when a dog is a legitimate threat, it doesn't help that the owners can sometimes not do their part to help minimise risk.

 

And again, sorry if I offend anyone! I'm sure you've all got lovely dogs and I have nothing against them at all. Only the horrible ones at my dog park who harass mine. >_>

Edited by StormWizard212

Share this post


Link to post

My point being that often in cases when a dog is a legitimate threat, it doesn't help that the owners can sometimes not do their part to help minimise risk.

 

That was the problem we had with our neighbors with the aggressive labs. When they attacked one of us, they might keep their dogs on a tighter leash for a week or so, then they were back to the same old routine. They only got their dogs under control when they bit an insurance agent that threatened to sue them. The problem where I live is that I am outside the city limits, where dogs don't have to be fenced or on a leash, they are free to wander as they please, and animal control can't do a thing about it.

Share this post


Link to post

If you feel that way, then you mustn't have pets yourself. sad.gif I'd care more about a dog attacking my pups than if it were to attack me. In fact, I've had to put myself between another dog and mine before. I wasn't hurt or anything, but if it was at the cost of saving them, then I'd happily take it. I am a fully grown man, my dogs weigh 5 kilos each.

 

 

Here, you can actually file a complaint with your local council if another dog attacks you or your pet. I don't know an awful lot about it, but I believe there's a "strikes" system in place. You get listed as having a dangerous dog if it's attacked, then you've got to put some safety measures in place, and if it happens again you can face legal action. I believe? I could be wrong.

I have pets, two dogs and two parrots. One is a german shepherd, a breed commonly on BSL lists in the US, and another is a husky mix(foster dog, so not really mine exactly). What I'm saying is that BSL is meant to protect people, it's not meant to protect other animals. If it was, a huge amount of dog breeds would be banned for killing cats. It has nothing to do with me caring, it's about the law caring. Although I definitely don't believe dog aggressive breeds should be banned simply for being dog aggressive. It's pretty easy to not allow your dog access to other dogs, and the only reason someone would fail at doing that would be irresponsible ownership.

 

The reason you can file a complaint or sue if your dog is attacked or killed by another dog is because it's destruction of property.

 

Dog or animal aggression has nothing to do with people aggression. BSL doesn't target dog aggressive dogs, so when I see people saying "Well a pitbull attacked my dog..." it really annoys me because it has nothing to do with BSL and it's redundant. In the eyes of the law, it's like saying "Well a pitbull tore up my garage door." It's only destruction of property and the law won't ban a breed for it.

 

EDIT: In case this post sounded pro-BSL or something, BSL is still stupid. smile.gif

Edited by Syaoransbear

Share this post


Link to post


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.