tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post6398507798084100207..comments2024-03-20T17:32:35.238+00:00Comments on Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog: Death Row DogsJemima Harrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05092892697145388048noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-79657532447601585542019-10-19T02:22:26.370+01:002019-10-19T02:22:26.370+01:00 Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not the same as the... Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not the same as the American Staffordshire Terrier and the American Pit Bull Terrier is not the same breed. The staffordshire bull existed long before the pit bull, and the pit bull in its development had several other uncertainties ....... the americam pit bull terrier is registered by ukc and adba (which were created before that of the FCI), the American Staffordshire Terrier is the FCI-affiliated AKC-registered pit bull terrier (americam pit bull terrier), which does not accept the name americam pit bull terrier because of the frog (even though there are amstaff with combat titles)Wariethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12310355581735172308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-19404880136610253692016-04-19T18:29:56.872+01:002016-04-19T18:29:56.872+01:00My question is if it is nature,how are so many fig...My question is if it is nature,how are so many fighting dogs rehabilitated and adopted to homes with children? Or bait dogs are rehabilitated and learn to love dogs again and humans by again being placed in homes? No dog is perfect nor is no dog inherently bad. Megan43https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538221389419753937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-10737343484816657672014-09-09T08:48:58.909+01:002014-09-09T08:48:58.909+01:00When one is talking BREEDS of dogs let's leave...When one is talking BREEDS of dogs let's leave your human racism out of it. Pits are selected for certain traits, such as fast attack, thick strong necks & in our time guardyness aka human aggressiveness. Bred for that. Your racism belongs in another discussion, bub.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-59361019870710241262014-09-09T08:36:17.857+01:002014-09-09T08:36:17.857+01:00All pitbulls have a charming side, & there are...All pitbulls have a charming side, & there are very many instances where a loving goofy fun pit has mauled or killed its owner. Charm is not an indicator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-64303565329923071812013-07-26T16:12:15.004+01:002013-07-26T16:12:15.004+01:00Pit bulls definitely have a natural nurturing side...Pit bulls definitely have a natural nurturing side and my pit bull is closest to my baby then he is to me and I have had him for almost 6 years now. It's the way you raise the pit bull that makes the violent or even have violent tendencies.<a href="http://www.unitedcommunities.com/community_profile.bpsx?CommunityID=32">calgary communities</a>noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-24814755762022204892012-03-03T14:42:30.551+00:002012-03-03T14:42:30.551+00:00It seems to me that entirely the wrong lesson has ...It seems to me that entirely the wrong lesson has been learned from the "pit bull terrier issue". Like the Staff in this country (and remember that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and American Pit Bull Terrier are likely the same "breed"), the APBT once had the reputation of being one of the most people-friendly of dogs, and probably the least effective guard dog possible. The way that dog fights were conducted, the social class of the people involved, and ultimately, the importance of money in the practice, both in betting and in the sale of dogs, meant that fighting dogs that attacked people rather than the opponent were a liability to be culled, not an asset to be bred from. <br />The lesson of the Pit Bull is that a breed of dog can be as easily destroyed by selective breeding as it can be improved. The APBT in c.1980 was the culmination of hundreds of years of breeding for a purpose, albeit an unpleasant one. Ten years later, its use as an attack dog by drug dealers in the USA, the attendant publicity, and its resulting popularity as a macho accessory, had engendered indiscriminate breeding that had changed the character of some dogs for the worse.<br />Unfortunately, the spotlight of the Dangerous Dogs Act just compounded the problem, by making the APBT the dog of choice for certain sections of UK society, so we are still having this discussion 20 years on.<br />GLRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-87997183243102313252012-03-02T18:19:52.571+00:002012-03-02T18:19:52.571+00:00I agree wholeheartedly with just about everything ...I agree wholeheartedly with just about everything you say except this: <br /><br />‘Any dog can be well raised and any dog can be badly raised.’<br /><br />This is true in itself but the implication is that the real problem is how a dog is raised. It is the ‘All They Need is Love’ argument and it is false. It ignores the genetic component of canine behaviour, which is there. Pit Bulls have been selected for aggressive behaviour towards other dogs and a large proportion of them still exhibit this behaviour, regardless of how well they are raised. <br /><br />Proper raising and management can mitigate and control a problem. That is not the same as making it go away. The severe aggression that many Pit Bulls display towards other dogs is a real issue and the level of diligent management needed to keep such dogs without them being a danger to other animals is well beyond what most pet owners are willing or able to take on. If you take on a Pit Bull, you have to assume it is one of those with aggressive tendencies because you won’t know if they have the tendency until it happens – and you can’t ever let it happen because the results can be horrific. This means you have to be in control mode all the time for the dog’s entire life and this is not how Pet People want to live with their dogs.<br /><br />Like all breed enthusiasts, Pittie People often (not always) suffer from breed blindness, but in their case it is with regard to temperament, not health. Pit Bulls are often very nice dogs, but to tell prospective owners that all they have to do is raise the dog well and they won’t have problems with genetically hardwired behaviour is misleading, irresponsible and unfair to both the humans and the dogs involved.Sarahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-19244935435390955982012-02-29T15:35:13.907+00:002012-02-29T15:35:13.907+00:00Every 'pitbull type' could be wiped clean ...Every 'pitbull type' could be wiped clean from the face of the earth it would change nothing. The next breed of dog would be chosen by the idiots who refuse to put the effort into raising them properly. Then the circus would continue.<br /><br />I find it amusing people can use the certain few dogs who attack as proof they are vicious breeds yet the thousands who don't are proof of nothing? Any dog can be well raised and any dog can be badly raised. Normally by the same people who raise their children badly. I wish we could ban them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-33994166980941732002012-02-24T13:51:25.569+00:002012-02-24T13:51:25.569+00:00Like I said, I don't care much about pit bulls...Like I said, I don't care much about pit bulls. I care about dog bites. All this talk of breed is merely a distraction from the real issues.<br /><br />Identification of dog breeds: 'most people' not 'most people really interested in dogs', who, let's face it, are more likely to be reading this blog than ordinary people. Just go walk a westie and see how many dog owners compliment your scottie's temperament (or your nice 'chihuahua'/jack russel, or 'labrador'/boxer): it's not something that most people know or need to. That's before you take into account the huge variation in dogs bred for the pet market, and mixed-breed dogs. <br /><br />I am whole-heartedly with you on PETA. <br /><br />I agree with some of the criticism of that blog post of the ATTS (note how it mentions even testers not knowing appropriate breed characteristics), but the conspiracy theory about pit bulls being selected for the test? The reading into what the owners are saying, which seems much more about the author's interpretation than what was actually said? Then there's the conflation of confidence and aggression, and implying timidity is less dangerous than confidence. Any vet will tell you, fear can and does cause aggression. A dog failing a temperament test for timidity is a feature, not a bug.<br /><br />Your point about the skye terrier is interesting. Considering small dog bites are underreported, and consistently the data show you're most likely to be bitten by large, popular-breed dogs, you wouldn't expect to see any deaths from a small, endangered dog breed. Deaths from small dogs are very very rare, because they're small (though there have been deaths from dogs like westies or yorkies). It's completely consistent with the known risk factors for bites, and particularly fatal bites. So why did you bring it up, when it's irrelevant to what both of us are arguing, and consistent with both of our arguments? <br /><br />It could indeed be that "many more, compared to other breeds and breed types, are dangerous with more frequent fatal notes" but the evidence is mixed. There is no good well-controlled evidence I've found for this point, and no-one here has put forward any yet. If the aggregation of evidence shows that pit bulls have a significantly higher bite risk to humans than other dogs, and this is independent of and has a greater effect than other factors, I'll change my opinion happily. But currently it doesn't show that. <br /><br />The focus on pit bulls is useless, because you can see in the statistics that regulation based on breed does nothing, or at best has a very mixed effect. We know exactly the kind of dogs most likely to bite and do serious damage, the kinds of situations that dogs bite in, and we should be trying to modify those factors, not ones like breed with less evidence behind them.<br /><br />If no-one ever bred a pit bull again I wouldn't care: I don't love them, I don't hate them, I don't particularly give a damn about them. I'm not a pit bull advocate any more than I'm a shale advocate. My beef is with bad science and distraction from measures that could actually have an effect. <br /><br />It's not harmless to allow this myth of dangerous and safe breeds, or notions that breed matters much more than factors like training/size etc for bite risk, to be propogated. It's not harmless to call for regulation based on inadequate evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-10764956977087618372012-02-24T06:39:31.837+00:002012-02-24T06:39:31.837+00:00You say that most people can't identify popula...You say that most people can't identify popular dog breeds. I call rubbish on that account. <a href="http://thetruthaboutpitbulls.blogspot.com/search/label/breed%20misidentification" rel="nofollow">For the most part because most dog breeds do have such distinct looks that the only breeds that would be confused are those of close genetic relation or function.</a> I can identify most dog breeds, can you? <br /><br />As for PETA, I don't agree with them when it comes to the "detriment" that humans cause pets. A lot of people love pets, and a lot of people do abuse them, but regardless of where that animal is, wild or capacity, suffering in the wild would be more constant than the chances of being in a loving home or rescued. <br /><br />I skimmed some of Boarder Collie's site and he has a part that mentions that pit bulls pass the ATTS. <a href="http://thetruthaboutpitbulls.blogspot.com/2010/08/there-are-three-kinds-of-lies-lies.html" rel="nofollow">What he doesn't mention is that the purpose of the test, rules, and pass rate are based on so much junk science and flexible variables that to use that as a clear source of breed temperament is false. Especially when you consider that the breed with the highest fail rate, the Skye Terrier, hasn't killed or mauled anyone to any known record. but the breed with one of the highest passing scores, has the highest rate of such.</a> The program would benefit from tests that actually benefit the dog's genetic and temperamental welfare and acknowledging that they are not best used as a real source for temperament. <br /><br />I love pit bulls, but I wont lie about them either. Many are great dogs but many more, compared to other breeds and breed types, are dangerous with more frequent fatal notes. If people really loved pit bulls and the welfare of this much maligned type they would not excuse this behavior, bur rather nullify, discourage, and void it through highly self controlled and regulated breeding and ownership. The doberman and rottie breeders have managed to self correct their dog's temperaments through good breeding and realistic viewpoints. Why wont other pit bull advocates?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-66361541512396999652012-02-22T21:18:14.059+00:002012-02-22T21:18:14.059+00:00Jemima,
My comment had two parts but only the sec...Jemima,<br /><br />My comment had two parts but only the second has been posted. Did the first part get lost?<br /><br />SarahSarahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-14168649976184351732012-02-22T21:01:29.592+00:002012-02-22T21:01:29.592+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15346648173880512533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-20319678491808317722012-02-22T20:10:43.516+00:002012-02-22T20:10:43.516+00:00Sputnik: Again, those sources are not accounting f...Sputnik: Again, those sources are not accounting for the well-known inability of most people to accurately determine breed of dog, and the reporting bias which will inevitably occur after a serious injury. <br /><br />A better idea would be to look at dogs whose breed is known, and then work out how many of them have bitten or show signs of aggressive behaviours. Studies have been done using those methods. Or you could do the same as the 'vicious dogs' study but verify the breed. <br /><br />That editorial is poorly-researched, to say the least. It's amazing that Ingrid Newkirk reccomends euthanizing dogs? Anyone who'd read PETA's position statement on euthanasia wouldn't be surprised. They euthanise the majority of animals under their care. Since they're the only major animal advocacy group advocating for mass euthanasia of pit bulls, that suggests it's less a pit bull thing and more a result of PETA's attitudes towards euthanasia for sheltered companion animals in general. <br /><br />Then there's the bit on how herding dogs are providing guiding bites, which is how they rank high in the statistics. Most research on dog bites adds the caveat that the majority of bites go unreported. Chances are light nips won't be recorded. Setting that aside, that's baseless assertion being treated as fact which suggests that the author isn't competent to assess risk or isn't dealing with the facts honestly. <br /> http://www.bordercollierescue.org/news/Content/Dangerous.html<br /><br />That injury prevention programme sounds great! It includes regulations on large dogs, and dogs with a history of aggression, both of which are definitely correlated with bite risk. Ban those with a criminal record or who are psychologically unfit from owning large dogs that bite, require those dogs to be muzzled in public, and you will definitely see bites go down.<br /><br /> Am I convinced that it wouldn't achieve the same thing just by going by size, aggression history, and perhaps improving it by adding other risk factors (for example unneutered males, untrained dogs etc)? No. Breed-specific legislation has had little effect in some other areas, some effect in others, in some places the numbers have got worse. No large-scale review done, but if you saw a drug with those response rates you wouldn't be recommending it. <br /><br />I'm not a pit bull owner, never have been, probably never will be, I don't particularly care about pit bulls (more or less than other dogs). If there was a verified increased aggression towards humans (with other risk factors controlled for properly to make sure it's not an artefact), then I'd be happy for a breeding ban and dangerous dogs act. But the evidence out there is far from convincing. <br /><br />There are a number of factors out there that are better supported by the evidence. Would you argue for heavy restrictions on ownership of large, male intact dogs because of the clear risk? <br /><br />Focusing on breed is distracting and at best likely to be inefficient and misleading. That's my issue with all this. <br /><br />Side note: it would be interesting to see, if you took bites from all dogs and classified them by severity, what would happen if you took any popular large-breed dog and compared it to the overall. Considering that several small breeds of dogs consistently come up in bite statistics (like dachshunds and jack russels), I'd expect that comparison to show that xyz big dog breed bites are more serious than normal bites. It's not the only explanation, or even the most obvious one, but it's simple enough.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-40785016557187918822012-02-22T16:33:57.779+00:002012-02-22T16:33:57.779+00:00Continued...
The City of Calgary is held up inter...Continued...<br /><br />The City of Calgary is held up internationally as a model for its successful reduction in the number of aggressive dog incidents. They do not have any form of breed specific legislation. The do have:<br /><br />• dangerous dog laws, <br />• an aggressive (sorry – couldn’t think of a better word!) public education programme, <br />• enforced licensing with a high rate of compliance<br />• heavy fines (which are collected) for non-compliance and irresponsible owner-behaviour, and<br />• unlike municipalities that have introduced BSL, statistics to prove the effectiveness of their approach:<br /><br />http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http%3a%2f%2fwww.calgary.ca%2fCSPS%2fABS%2fDocuments%2fAnimal-Services%2fAnimal-statistics%2fAggressive%2520Dog%2520Incidents.pdf&noredirect=1<br /><br />Note that the reduction in the number of incidents is happening at the same time that the city’s population is increasing. Note also the amount of time this reduction has taken, 25 years, and therein lies the problem. People want a quick, easy solution to what we all agree is a problem and there isn’t one. The problem is a human one; the solution requires targeting ill-informed and reckless owners and educating the public, both of which take time.<br /><br />Pitties have their issues and the All-They-Need-Is-Love Brigade do them no favours. I’ve heard a lot of garbage on both sides of the argument. I’m not against BSL because I think Pitties are just misunderstood dogs that really are ideal family pets for anyone. I don’t, though I do like them. I am against BSL because it is unworkable and does not address the real problem and thus does not lead to an increase in public safety. While it is true that some breeds are potentially higher risk because of their size and breed characteristics, there is no such thing as a ‘safe’ dog. They all have a set of very sharp teeth and any dog, including a small dog, has the potential to use its teeth to inflict a lot of damage if the circumstances are right (or maybe I should say wrong). Demonising one breed and attempting to ban it does not increase public safety; it just creates a lot of dead dogs.Sarahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-72071757713744824752012-02-22T16:31:29.422+00:002012-02-22T16:31:29.422+00:00@Sputnik,
It is true that there is a genetic comp...@Sputnik,<br /><br />It is true that there is a genetic component to aggression in dogs and it is possible to breed away from dogs that carry this trait. In fighting breed dogs, I’m all for it. I would be very interested in any links you can provide to the work on identifying the gene you mention.<br /><br />However, there are also many other factors involved in aggression, which means simply using a genetic test to identify aggressive dogs and cull them outright or eliminate them from breeding programmes won’t work to solve the problem because many of the other influences on aggression involve human behaviour and social problems. <br /><br />“… a dog’s tendency to bite depends on at least 5 interacting factors: heredity, early experience, later socialization and training, health (medical and behavioral), and victim behavior.’<br /><br />http://www.avma.org/public_health/dogbite/dogbite.pdf<br /><br />There are many, many properly conducted studies on aggression, dog bites and BSL because they involve a serious and expensive public health issue. Even when studies find that Pit Bulls account for a relatively high number of attacks, they almost invariably say it is impossible to draw such a conclusion because of the problems with how such statistics can be skewed. For instance, there is a fundamental flaw in the study you provided a link to: ‘Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs’. In Table 2 the researchers calculate the relative risk of fatal attack by dog using AKC registration statistics. They lump the following dogs together: Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and American Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The problem is that the AKC does not register Pit Bull Terriers, so the authors of the study have included these dogs in one statistic (number of dogs involved in fatal attacks) but not in the group used to calculate the risk (number of dogs registered with the AKC).<br /><br />One study, ‘Breed differences in canine aggression’, did indicate that Pit Bulls have a significantly high rate of severe aggression towards other dogs (something that should surprise no-one given the breed’s original purpose and something that anyone who takes on one of these dogs should be aware of and prepared to manage). They displayed a below average rate of aggression toward humans. Here’s the abstract:<br /><br />http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/applan/article/S0168-1591(08)00114-7/abstract<br /><br />Bear in mind that dog-directed aggression and human-directed aggression are apples and oranges. Some breeds and individual dogs display both but most display only one or the other.<br /><br />I’ve ordered the Spanish study you provided the link to (thank you for that) and will be interested to read it as the studies I have read found that BSL does not reduce bite rates or that any reduction in rates can be attributed to other factors. Here’s the abstract for a study done by the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary on statistics before and after the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991:<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8730379<br /><br />Here’s the abstract for a similar Spanish study:<br /><br />http://www.journalvetbehavior.com/article/S1558-7878(07)00202-X/abstract<br /><br />An article in The Canadian Veterinary Journal points out that while there was a decline in bite statistics in Winnipeg after the introduction of BSL, they also note that the city simultaneously implemented a public education and advertising campaign to promote responsible dog ownership and public awareness about dog bites, making it impossible to relate the drop in bite incidents to either measure.<br /><br />I can’t find an abstract; here are the publication details:<br />Breed specific legislation: considerations for evaluating its effectiveness and recommendations for alternatives.<br />Rebecca A. Ledger, Jane S. Orihel, Nancy Clarke, Sarah Murphy, Mitja Sedlbauer<br />Can Vet J. 2005 August; 46(8): 735–743.Sarahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-50356124360538083452012-02-22T07:23:04.592+00:002012-02-22T07:23:04.592+00:00It's not so hard to calculate the risk. See:
...It's not so hard to calculate the risk. See:<br /><br />http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/04/1/editorialHighRiskDogs1.04.html<br /><br />Society is allowed to say it doesn't want this level of risk. Once the risk is clear, we don't have to first prove anything else to a small group of fanatical, mostly irrational consumers. It's kinda like letting gun lovers make us defensive because they aren't allowed to own Kalashnikovs. <br /><br />Those with access to scientific sites might find the following articles interesting:<br /><br />http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/16/6/408.abstract<br /><br />and <br /><br />http://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/Abstract/2011/04000/Mortality,_Mauling,_and_Maiming_by_Vicious_Dogs.23.aspxSputnikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573939061886377974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-39588179885984756302012-02-21T12:02:12.172+00:002012-02-21T12:02:12.172+00:00Anonymous (Feb 20 04:03)- you're arguing again...Anonymous (Feb 20 04:03)- you're arguing against a point Kate didn't make. You provided evidence of genetics being the cause of aggression, she asked for evidence that aggressive genes have been identified (not whether they exist), and that aggressive genes are concentrated in pit bulls. Not the same thing. There is currently no genetic tests which can be done to determine how likely a dog is to bite someone or otherwise show aggression. There's research being done, but it's in the early stages.<br /><br />There are more pit bulls (or pit bull breeds and pit bull type dogs) than there are great danes, so you have to adjust for that before making comparisons between them. It's like saying that cobra venom's less dangerous than paracetamol, because more people are killed by paracetamol every year in the UK. <br /><br />Identification of pit bulls is a problem. In areas with legislation against pit bulls, there have been cases where pure-bred labradors were identified as 'pit bulls'. Heck, people identify boxers as 'pit bulls'. Add a dog bite into the mix and you can be sure that at least some of those dogs were mixes or something else entirely. Pit bull mix makes the best story, and ultimately that is the priority for a lot of journalists. <br /><br />And actually, where herding dogs are more common they bite more people and do more damage than pit bulls. I've seen a few people with permanent scars from herding dogs. I've never seen one from a pit bull. Statistically, in Ireland, collies cause most of the attacks (closely followed by a few other popular breeds). <br /><br />It's all determined by what's common, what's poorly-bred, the conditions of the attack, and the care of the dog etc. <br /><br /><br />Sure, pit bulls are high drive and can be prone to aggression towards other animals. So are lots of breeds of dogs. But there's little actual evidence for the hypothesis that pit bull types are generally more prone to attack humans than other dogs, independent of those other factors, or that their bites are more serious than those of other similar-sized dogs. Currently it's dalmatians and lhasa apsos that hold that second honour.<br /><br /> The American temperament test society's president says he's tested about 500 pit bulls, " And of the number I've tested I have disqualified one pit bull because of aggressive tendencies. They have done extremely well. They have a good temperament."<br /><br />http://www.vin.com/proceedings/Proceedings.plx?CID=WSAVA2008&PID=23944&Category=3858&O=Generic<br /><br />http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_06_a_pitbull.html<br /><br />While your ideas are interesting, you're putting the cart before the horse. Show there's a genetic or breed-related predisposition to aggression which has a sizeable effect (independent of the confounding factors of conditions the dog is kept in etc, and cultural and identification factors) and then that pit bulls are more likely to have this predisposition than other breeds, and then you'll have the basis of your argument. <br /><br />http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/Working+with+patients+-+technicians/Study-Chihuahuas-bite-vets-most-Lhaso-Apsos-inflic/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/613820Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-23552308137698084362012-02-21T00:05:19.961+00:002012-02-21T00:05:19.961+00:00You mentioned that your cousin was killed by Great...You mentioned that your cousin was killed by Great Danes, what year was this and what was their name? To the best of my knowledge, all identifiable dog fatalities are reported to some sort of registry that keeps track of this sort of thing. <br /><br />I googled "UK 6 year old killed by great danes" and came up with nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-26275555519316820852012-02-20T22:08:57.877+00:002012-02-20T22:08:57.877+00:00Have "aggression" genes truly been ident...Have "aggression" genes truly been identified? If so, then that's fantastic, and it sounds like a good basis to attempt to breed out any inherent aggressive tendencies. However, before we do genetic testing on this basis and condemn breeds to death based on the presence of mutant genes, we should be confident of the science first. What we know right now is that the current BSL is condemning pups to death based on dimensions and dogs that don't meet the same criteria but already confiscated for biting being returned to owners anyway. <br /><br />Given that the hype surrounding "dangerous breeds" tends to be based on trends, I'm sceptical that any mutant gene towards aggression would be concentrated heavily in pit breeds. Thirty years ago people were fretting over danger posed by breeds that are today not the focus of attention. I believe, and you can call me "obtuse" if you like, there's a correlation between how dangerous a dog is and current trends. Rotties are seemingly out of fashion, but give it another twenty odd years. Maybe that mutant gene will rear its ugly head again.Katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15346648173880512533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-59120146154207297652012-02-20T21:42:33.724+00:002012-02-20T21:42:33.724+00:00I disagree, Anon. My butch bulldog's ear was ...I disagree, Anon. My butch bulldog's ear was nearly torn off by the JRT. I had him under control, and he obediently desisted from fighting to protect himself. The owner of this less-likely-to-harm JRT, however, couldn't be asked. Fortunately I was able to remove him from my dog's ear but still had to make the trip to the out-of-hours vet. How many times do you think similar scenarios have resulted in larger dogs taking the blame for incidents where the less-likely-to-harm smaller breed was the instigator and its owner had no idea how to control them? I'm guessing plenty more than you'll ever find stats about and certainly fewer than you'll ever hear about from the media. Not everyone's dog will obediently stop defending itself just because its owner wished it, and, were my dog to have continued to defend himself, that JRT might not have walked away. What do you think you'd read about in the papers the next day were the dog, instead of a bulldog, a Staffy, and the media were to have gotten hold of the story? I'm guessing it would have been a trash piece.<br /><br />My cousin was attacked and killed by two Great Danes when he was 6 years old. No one is calling for Danes to be banned, and neither should they be because these two dogs were products of owners who chose to use them as guard dogs. That's not a fault of the breed; the fault lies with the human. But, if the same people who use Staffies as status symbols chose instead to use Danes...well, we wouldn't be discussing Staffies or pits at all. And "Death Row Dogs" would have been about dangerous Danes.Katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15346648173880512533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-10590665422957821472012-02-20T19:52:23.516+00:002012-02-20T19:52:23.516+00:00Breed bans treat all handlers the same in that the...Breed bans treat all handlers the same in that they say, for example, no one is capable of correctly training and handling a pit bull or a tosa. That is manifestly wrong and there are many good and experienced people who would never allow a dog of any breed to be a problem to others.<br />By the same token some elements of the deed not breed lobby insist that we must treat all dogs the same. That flies in the face of logic. It’s patently obvious that a big powerful dog with a fighting or strong guarding instinct represents a greater potential danger than a small toy breed. Those who insist on denying this fact seem to me to be deliberately obtuse.<br />I feel we need a new approach that acknowledges there are differences in the skills and abilities of handlers and also accepts that there are differences in the potential danger posed by the various types of dog. In short, although it’s a phrase forever associated with the hugely unpopular health and safety industry, we need to conduct risk assessments. <br />With motor vehicles we make insurance compulsory. Insurance companies conduct rough and ready risk assessments of drivers and their vehicles and set premiums accordingly. It’s far from perfect but, by and large, it keeps young inexperienced drivers out of the fastest most powerful cars. <br />I believe it could do something similar in the world of dogs. Compulsory insurance isn’t ideal but it is the only cost effective way of starting to make those much needed risk assessments. It gives the opportunity for group discounts for training clubs and individual discounts for experienced handlers. It also offers us a chance to be proactive on these matters rather than waiting for the “deed” before we take action. Uninsured dogs can be removed from the streets as uninsured cars can be taken off the road.<br />If we continue to insist on all dogs being treated as equal more and more councils etc will take us at our word and simply ban all dogs. <br /><br />KevinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-33603995453941177512012-02-20T19:15:16.343+00:002012-02-20T19:15:16.343+00:00dogs cannot murder.. murder is a human crime.. ani...dogs cannot murder.. murder is a human crime.. animals cannot "murder each other or humans". nor can people murder animals.<br />Sputnik I challenge you to bring that study here that show "implusive aggression " in canines...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-48363821210803981672012-02-20T18:48:39.186+00:002012-02-20T18:48:39.186+00:00Kate -
I like pit type dogs, but let's be se...Kate - <br /><br />I like pit type dogs, but let's be serious. What are you more likely to be mauled by? A small dog or a large dog? What type of large dog is more likely to cause the most damage, a herding, protection, or fighting dog? <br /><br />The problem isn't simple nips and bites, or fights that sound ferocious but cause little to no harm. The problem is the mauling, dislocation, amputation, and murders caused by dogs and unfortunately pit and guard type dogs cause the most damage in those respects. <br /><br />Sputnik has a good point. Why are so many breeders against genetic testing for aggression when it could very easily cull out the genetically bad dogs and make a far safer pool of dogs to be good family pets? The only person who would be against this is someone who soaked up propaganda from advocacy sources who people who benefit from breeding ferocious dogs. Both sects of society which cause more harm by denying the truth and actions of some of their stock or pets than the people who try and protect themselves against them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-20543648538279465762012-02-19T17:57:37.597+00:002012-02-19T17:57:37.597+00:00Anon Feb 13 --
I go to Wimbledon Common with my do...Anon Feb 13 --<br />I go to Wimbledon Common with my dog everyday. Staffies are a common site there, and I've never had a problem with any of them. <br /><br />However, my dog (not a Staffy) was attacked there once. By a Jack Russell. Spend some time around these dogs yourselves -- it sounds like you're basing your comments on news articles and hearsay -- and you might find they're quite docile dogs with good and bad in the mix like every other breed. It sounds like you're in the London area. Volunteer at Battersea, who are forced to pick up the pieces of what society does to these dogs, yet still have the opinion that the breed isn't the problem. Volunteer there for several months, and then make an informed post based on more than media hype and fantastical stories.Katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15346648173880512533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-32794819169732166742012-02-15T17:02:26.182+00:002012-02-15T17:02:26.182+00:00With over two hundred breeds listed on the Kennel ...With over two hundred breeds listed on the Kennel Club website, why do people want a breed of dog that has this reputation. I actually think the DDA doesn't go far enough and even more breeds should be banned. Dogs are family pets and should be a source of great enjoyment for the whole family. It is beyond my comprehension as to why parents especially, but really anyone would want to allow an animal designed for killing to roam freely around their home.<br /><br />I love dogs and don't enjoy the thought of any dog being put to sleep, but maybe it's time some of the breeds and types have had their day and should no longer be available within this country.<br /><br />Maybe a hammer to break a nut, or ruining the fun for the masses because of a few, but that's life and a child's life is worth more than a breed of dog.Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15150091718819837141noreply@blogger.com