Dangerous Dogs Act has never worked

[Deleted]

you can't control these aggressive breeds that have it in their genes. they might be "the sweetest thing ever who wouldn't hurt a fly" but once they snap they usually don't stop. this is why like 70% of all fatal dog attacks are done by those breeds. data doesn't lie. while it's true that you mostly see those breeds owned by human trash there are tons of normal people owning them too.

almost every dog will snap if you push it, but the difference between a non fighting breed is that he will probably only bite or nip and then stop, while for example pit bull will try to inflict maximum damage and keep going because that's just how he's programmed. you can't reverse that no matter how much you train him. no matter how harmless or sweet your dog is, it's pretty much proven that if he's one of those aggressive breeds he's a disaster waiting to happen.

those breeds should be purged and people fined or even jailed for breeding/owning them.

This is like saying "black people are more prone to crime because statistics show the majority of crimes are committed by black people"

[Deleted]

This is like saying "black people are more prone to crime because statistics show the majority of crimes are committed by black people"

why "like"? that's the absolute truth.

[Deleted]

why "like"? that's the absolute truth.

Yes if you're ignoring various other important factors

[Vanyali]

My father worked in Animal control. He was very much always for the banning of certain breeds after having to deal with them often in attacks and as stray and always said that particular breeds were naturally ALWAYS more aggressive on average than others.

He said idiots with the stupid mindset of "well my "y" Breed is a loving caring dog and wouldn't hurt a fly so all should be legal" always failed to look at the big picture, sure their dog may be fine, but on average dogs of the same Breed he often had to capture and put down due to them tearing someone elses' pets and/or Children up much more often than any other breeds.

Whilst people often fall back on the "It's the owner not the dogs fault" that is only ever a portion of it. A dog like all animals will always naturally have its own temperament and training will always just teach the dogs to do things, never actually mold its natural self.

That's funny, because the majority of people that work with dogs actually say that small dogs are the true terrors. And dachshunds are most likely to bite you than any other dog.

[Deleted]

That's funny, because the majority of people that work with dogs actually say that small dogs are the true terrors. And dachshunds are most likely to bite you than any other dog.

Agree, it doesn't matter the size, if your nasty to it, it will be nasty back, or you let it do whatever the hell it wants, and let go feral. To a child, even a small dog can be frighting.

Although there are breeds which do require more firm hand than some others, like Staffy, Pitbull, Alsatians and even Jack russel, bitely little bastards they are.

[Techno-Druid]

Then why are so many 'bannd breeds' well adjusted pets?

- - - Updated - - -



Not really because even breeds with incredibly passive traits can be dangerous if trained / treated wrong

Yes you're correct, but I'm also saying genes CAN play a part in a dog's behavior and if these people who wanted to ban these dogs really cared, they would support a solution like that.

[Flurryfang]

the DDA (and similar laws) don't work because the problem isn't with the dogs it's with the people.

The scary dangerous dog changes every decade or so as they're banned. You want to stop the "scary [x]"? Work on educating people on how to train their dog properly, and work on laws that require proper care and training for certain types of dogs (ie, guardian dogs should have required extensive socializing... herding dogs required classes on what happens to understimulated dogs.. and so on for various types).

It won't happen because it's apparently a sovereign right to do whatever you want with your dog, though.

But the problem with the "its a people problem, not a problem with dogs" is that it is insanely hard to make laws limiting people from doing things. Putting up a dog-lincense would take ALOT of work, since there need to be a general rule set for nearly every dog breed. There would need to be people, who uphold this law, teams going out and checking all kennels and every sale of a dog needs to have new paperwork instigated.

Also, people have a tendency to not follow rules, which makes the specific dog breeds, who are breed for fighting, free to run around, if not for the ban. Having a ban makes thing pretty easy to regulate. If people see a dog of a specific breed, they can report them and the police can come around. With a single picture, the police will know that there is no mistake and things will be dealt with.

With a dog-license, police are gonna see a huge work load pushed onto them, because people are surely gonna "false" report some owners, who actually do have the license.

[Vanyali]

But the problem with the "its a people problem, not a problem with dogs" is that it is insanely hard to make laws limiting people from doing things. Putting up a dog-lincense would take ALOT of work, since there need to be a general rule set for nearly every dog breed. There would need to be people, who uphold this law, teams going out and checking all kennels and every sale of a dog needs to have new paperwork instigated.

Also, people have a tendency to not follow rules, which makes the specific dog breeds, who are breed for fighting, free to run around, if not for the ban. Having a ban makes thing pretty easy to regulate. If people see a dog of a specific breed, they can report them and the police can come around. With a single picture, the police will know that there is no mistake and things will be dealt with.

With a dog-license, police are gonna see a huge work load pushed onto them, because people are surely gonna "false" report some owners, who actually do have the license.

The dogs bred for fighting are also bred to NOT be human aggressive. Yes, they're different. Yes, you can breed for both.

The problem really is that people think it's their god-given right to slap together two dogs with shit personalities, breed shit dogs, label it a [x] breed, sell it to shit owners, that do shit for training and socializing, and when it inevitably bites someone the rest of the world looks at them and says "see, i told you [x] breed was dangerous".

Go ahead and ban the breed in favor of "omg, it's too hard". We tried this with G. Sheps. With Rotts. With Chows. With "Pitbulls" (which are *different* from Staffies, which are replacing "Pitbulls" - said "pitbulls" being a catchphrase for badly mixed bully breeds in general, most aptly demonstrated with the "American Bully" bullshit.).

[Nihilist74]

Charge the owners with a crime if there dog attacks and injures someone without warrant. If someone trespasses on your property then I say that by law the owner wouldn't be responsible for the dog attacking but anything off of the owners property, the owner would be responsible for their dog attacking someone. I don't know anything about the other banned breeds of dogs but I agree on banning pit bulls.

[Flurryfang]

The dogs bred for fighting are also bred to NOT be human aggressive. Yes, they're different. Yes, you can breed for both.

The problem really is that people think it's their god-given right to slap together two dogs with shit personalities, breed shit dogs, label it a [x] breed, sell it to shit owners, that do shit for training and socializing, and when it inevitably bites someone the rest of the world looks at them and says "see, i told you [x] breed was dangerous".

Go ahead and ban the breed in favor of "omg, it's too hard". We tried this with G. Sheps. With Rotts. With Chows. With "Pitbulls" (which are *different* from Staffies, which are replacing "Pitbulls" - said "pitbulls" being a catchphrase for badly mixed bully breeds in general, most aptly demonstrated with the "American Bully" bullshit.).

But the problem is not always human aggresive. Some dog breeds are banned, because if they interact with other animals, they go crazy. It is hard to put a note on a dog breed with "only allowed within walled areas". Dogs are gonna be outside and meet other dogs, its pretty hard to avoid it, so when some dogs are breed(its in their genes) to fight other animals, its very hard to train that away or to suppres it.

You are very right, that people have some delusion that owning a dog/kat(also kid) is something, which we all have the right to: We have the right to not be alone, if we can buy the company. And it does create shitty behavier and shitty, but you try to promote the "you don't have a right to a dog" policy and you will see that people are very much against it. So sure, they are very good reasons to have limitations on people getting animals, but people don't care. They just want to have the right.

[Vanyali]

But the problem is not always human aggresive. Some dog breeds are banned, because if they interact with other animals, they go crazy. It is hard to put a note on a dog breed with "only allowed within walled areas". Dogs are gonna be outside and meet other dogs, its pretty hard to avoid it, so when some dogs are breed(its in their genes) to fight other animals, its very hard to train that away or to suppres it.

You are very right, that people have some delusion that owning a dog/kat(also kid) is something, which we all have the right to: We have the right to not be alone, if we can buy the company. And it does create shitty behavier and shitty, but you try to promote the "you don't have a right to a dog" policy and you will see that people are very much against it. So sure, they are very good reasons to have limitations on people getting animals, but people don't care. They just want to have the right.

Or, you know, just enforce a "your dog must be spayed / neutered unless you have a breeding license" law. Which would drop 1) the stray population and 2) the aggression of some dogs.

Fighting dogs also aren't bred to go mad and attack wildly whenever they see another dog. Shitty people breeding shitty dogs, yes. The actual breeds? Not so much. How do you keep more than one fighting dog if seeing another dog drives it into a frenzy, exactly?

Every behavior people rail against starts in the same place: shitty owners. Work on owner education, not BSL that accomplishes shit.

[Aggrophobic]

Even if certain breeds are more prone to being aggressive, wouldn't it make more sense to set up programs to breed the more genetically passive dogs and promote their adoption?

I'm pretty sure something like that was done with Tibetan mastiffs.

This is usually done but at the same time, some types of dogs are sought after by a certain type of people, people that should not have dogs or animals at all.
So yeah, these laws won't work as it's generally the owners fault when a dog turns dangerous.

If they can't find a pit bull they'll pick something else and after a while we won't have ny dog breeds left.

[Spectral]

This is like saying "black people are more prone to crime because statistics show the majority of crimes are committed by black people"

Which, of course, we all know can't be true, because it would be racist or something.

[Flurryfang]

Or, you know, just enforce a "your dog must be spayed / neutered unless you have a breeding license" law. Which would drop 1) the stray population and 2) the aggression of some dogs.

Fighting dogs also aren't bred to go mad and attack wildly whenever they see another dog. Shitty people breeding shitty dogs, yes. The actual breeds? Not so much. How do you keep more than one fighting dog if seeing another dog drives it into a frenzy, exactly?

Every behavior people rail against starts in the same place: shitty owners. Work on owner education, not BSL that accomplishes shit.

That would helped with the problem in 10-15 years, but it would do very little to solve a current problem. Also, people/politicians are very good at accepting laws, which only starts working in +5 years.

Yes, that is pretty much some dogs are breed. You take the most aggresive dog in a litter and breed with another aggresive dog in a litter. You keep doing that for 50 generations and you got a dog, which dont need to provoked before showing aggresive behavier. But that is often suppresed or can be suppresed through trainning and distance from other dogs. But it is something, which is in them and can easily be pulled out by some event. But as said before, shitty people can make shitty dogs, even peaceful dogs can, with a new owner, become shitty dogs.

While i agree, that working on making better education for dog owners is good, it is not a solution in anyway. People are lazy and getting the trainning is often too much to ask of some people. Having laws, who are pretty simple (which a ban law often is) is often a solution, which has the quickest and clearest impact and is easy for people to know about and accept. The problem with it is, that such laws does not see the individual. It does not see, that some things are different dependent on each incident/object.

So its not perfect, far from, but it is often the only law/ruleset which people will accept and follow.

[Vanyali]

That would helped with the problem in 10-15 years, but it would do very little to solve a current problem. Also, people/politicians are very good at accepting laws, which only starts working in +5 years.

Yes, that is pretty much some dogs are breed. You take the most aggresive dog in a litter and breed with another aggresive dog in a litter. You keep doing that for 50 generations and you got a dog, which dont need to provoked before showing aggresive behavier. But that is often suppresed or can be suppresed through trainning and distance from other dogs. But it is something, which is in them and can easily be pulled out by some event. But as said before, shitty people can make shitty dogs, even peaceful dogs can, with a new owner, become shitty dogs.

While i agree, that working on making better education for dog owners is good, it is not a solution in anyway. People are lazy and getting the trainning is often too much to ask of some people. Having laws, who are pretty simple (which a ban law often is) is often a solution, which has the quickest and clearest impact and is easy for people to know about and accept. The problem with it is, that such laws does not see the individual. It does not see, that some things are different dependent on each incident/object.

So its not perfect, far from, but it is often the only law/ruleset which people will accept and follow.

Except for the fact that pretty much all authorities save the ones pushing BSL state that BSL doesn't work. Bites don't go down. Problems aren't solved. They just move to another breed.

Seriously, this is a 30 y/o argument you're using. It didn't work with three breeds before you. Why on earth do people still think it will work because trying something new would be too hard.

[Shadowferal]

why "like"? that's the absolute truth.

And the 90% of all crime committed by whites ...I guess that would be true too...?

[TirielWoW]

I would like to see the statistics of well trained dogs snapping without reason

The only breed I know of that has documented, well-studied accounts of them simply "snapping" without provocation are Springer Spaniels. And in them, it's an actual genetic defect caused by breeding for show dogs. There was a very decorated show dog that had this issue, and most of the show lines are bred into his line.

- - - Updated - - -

Charge the owners with a crime if there dog attacks and injures someone without warrant. If someone trespasses on your property then I say that by law the owner wouldn't be responsible for the dog attacking but anything off of the owners property, the owner would be responsible for their dog attacking someone. I don't know anything about the other banned breeds of dogs but I agree on banning pit bulls.

I don't agree on banning pit bulls, as I own one. But I do think that people who own these dogs should be held responsible, legally and financially, for what their dogs do.

- - - Updated - - -

That would helped with the problem in 10-15 years, but it would do very little to solve a current problem. Also, people/politicians are very good at accepting laws, which only starts working in +5 years.

Well, then, what you want is a temporary "fix," i.e. something that makes you feel like you're at least trying. You're not actually interested in solving the root of the problem, meaning that your temporary "fix" is doomed to failure from the start.

[Flurryfang]

Well, then, what you want is a temporary "fix," i.e. something that makes you feel like you're at least trying. You're not actually interested in solving the root of the problem, meaning that your temporary "fix" is doomed to failure from the start.

Yes, i am implying that that is the current solution. It is doomed to fail or doomed to work subuptimally, but that is the only one people will accept. If you have seen my posts, you will see that i am in noway cheering for these laws, a ban is stupid, but it is the only solution, which the current system will accept. People are simply to afraid of fixes, which have a general impact on their ability to get dogs

[Daedius]

I've seen far more vicious Jack Russells, for example, than I have of those on the banned list... vast majority of the time its useless dog owners that make these things happen.

[Halyon]

All it does is both humor and feed into the fearful masses...

Some dogs are more demanding of people and I can understand why they shouldn't really be allowed for most common/casual dog owners, but DDA is not the way to go...

As for dog fights, and why people give amstaffs/pits a bad rap is because they were made that way...if they get so outlawed/rare/extinct, they'll find another breed to use instead, continuing the vicious cycle...