Murphy
02-20-2010, 07:11 PM
Inspired by this (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2130&highlight=Dogs) story here, I want to bring up the subject of breed-specific legislation.
Now, although the above mentioned story is a tragic accent, a few things should be kept in mind. No dog should ever and I repeat ever be left alone and unsupervised with young children. It doesn't matter how long you have had the dog, you could have had the dog for 10 years and it could be of upstanding character, all it takes is that brief second when you leave your child in the living-room to pop into the kitchen for a second, and then tragedy strikes.
A dog is a dog, it will behave like a dog. You cannot expect it to behave like a human.
Another thing. Dogs very and I must emphasise this, very rarely attack without any sign or indication. There is always an indication. You must learn to read a dog's body language.
To the point then, a few people were mentioning specific breeds as dangerous. This I think is ridiculous. Blame the deed not the breed. I think it is appropriate to mention there is a big difference between dog-dog aggression and dog-human aggression. These are two vastly different things that not a lot of people understand. Staffordshire Bull Terriers for example tend to be quite dog-dog aggressive. Most responsible owners of Staffies tend to carry break-sticks around with them for this reason. However, Staffordshire Bull Terriers are amazingly human-affectionate dogs. They make great family pets and thrive around children. Were Staffordshire Bull Terriers bred to be fighting dogs? Of course. That is exactly why they had to be people-friendly. It wouldn't have done well in a pit-fight for the dogs to turn on all those drunken gamblers, would it?
I can say with complete honesty, that if there was ever an instance where I had to leave my child unsupervised with a dog, I would be my comfortable in the knowledge that it was a Staffy than I would any other dog.
Rottweilers were another breed of dog that was slammed. Rottweilers tend to be much less dog-dog aggressive than Staffies though they are above average in general. These are of the working dog variety. A Rottweiler should not be human aggressive. A Rottweiler is not as open with its affection as Staffies. They have a calm, self-assured demeanor with a "wait-and-see" attitude. This is why they are not so quick to show their affection or rather should not be. As a guard dog, they are there to alert you and to try and bluff their way through life. They should assess a threat and take time to consider. They will bark and they will place themselves in front of their owner if it senses a threat, but rarely should a Rottweiler actually attack. In fact, tests prove a Rottweiler is more likely to run. Why? Because it is a dog and its self-preservation instincts are strong. As much as people would wish to know their dog will come to the rescue, chances are it wont and should not be relied on for that. Anyway, as I was saying.. if a Rottweiler was human-aggressive, then every human would be considered a threat. That completely destroys its entire purpose. These are intelligent dogs, they know the difference between a drunken lout and a passing postman.
This has turned into a longer post that I had planned, so I will not even get into the part poor breeding by, as Americans say, "back yard breeders". Breeding dogs that do not even try to reach the breed standard. I also think certain things are a little self evidence.. like the owners responsibility to train their dogs, make sure they are well socialised, Kennel Club registered etc.
So, what is your opinion on breed-specific legislation?
BLAME THE DEED, NOT THE BREED!
Regards,
The Papist.
Now, although the above mentioned story is a tragic accent, a few things should be kept in mind. No dog should ever and I repeat ever be left alone and unsupervised with young children. It doesn't matter how long you have had the dog, you could have had the dog for 10 years and it could be of upstanding character, all it takes is that brief second when you leave your child in the living-room to pop into the kitchen for a second, and then tragedy strikes.
A dog is a dog, it will behave like a dog. You cannot expect it to behave like a human.
Another thing. Dogs very and I must emphasise this, very rarely attack without any sign or indication. There is always an indication. You must learn to read a dog's body language.
To the point then, a few people were mentioning specific breeds as dangerous. This I think is ridiculous. Blame the deed not the breed. I think it is appropriate to mention there is a big difference between dog-dog aggression and dog-human aggression. These are two vastly different things that not a lot of people understand. Staffordshire Bull Terriers for example tend to be quite dog-dog aggressive. Most responsible owners of Staffies tend to carry break-sticks around with them for this reason. However, Staffordshire Bull Terriers are amazingly human-affectionate dogs. They make great family pets and thrive around children. Were Staffordshire Bull Terriers bred to be fighting dogs? Of course. That is exactly why they had to be people-friendly. It wouldn't have done well in a pit-fight for the dogs to turn on all those drunken gamblers, would it?
I can say with complete honesty, that if there was ever an instance where I had to leave my child unsupervised with a dog, I would be my comfortable in the knowledge that it was a Staffy than I would any other dog.
Rottweilers were another breed of dog that was slammed. Rottweilers tend to be much less dog-dog aggressive than Staffies though they are above average in general. These are of the working dog variety. A Rottweiler should not be human aggressive. A Rottweiler is not as open with its affection as Staffies. They have a calm, self-assured demeanor with a "wait-and-see" attitude. This is why they are not so quick to show their affection or rather should not be. As a guard dog, they are there to alert you and to try and bluff their way through life. They should assess a threat and take time to consider. They will bark and they will place themselves in front of their owner if it senses a threat, but rarely should a Rottweiler actually attack. In fact, tests prove a Rottweiler is more likely to run. Why? Because it is a dog and its self-preservation instincts are strong. As much as people would wish to know their dog will come to the rescue, chances are it wont and should not be relied on for that. Anyway, as I was saying.. if a Rottweiler was human-aggressive, then every human would be considered a threat. That completely destroys its entire purpose. These are intelligent dogs, they know the difference between a drunken lout and a passing postman.
This has turned into a longer post that I had planned, so I will not even get into the part poor breeding by, as Americans say, "back yard breeders". Breeding dogs that do not even try to reach the breed standard. I also think certain things are a little self evidence.. like the owners responsibility to train their dogs, make sure they are well socialised, Kennel Club registered etc.
So, what is your opinion on breed-specific legislation?
BLAME THE DEED, NOT THE BREED!
Regards,
The Papist.