To wish dangerous dog breeds and all breeds closely resembling them were banned in UK?

[DustOfALongSleeplessNight]

There are so many nice friendly breeds, why chose a breed that was developed for aggression and fighting? I know individual dogs have different temperaments, but if they were selectively bred for bull and bear baiting, how can they make good pets?

Pit bulls (illegal in UK) are frequently kept illegally and passed off as Staffy-crosses until the police find them.

I think they should ban all dobermans, rottweilers, staffordshire bull terriers, malamutes, huskies, german shepherds and any other dog with aggressive genetics, plus all the breeds that closely resemble them. I frequently see these breeds in local park, off the lead, running amongst small children!

You're going to get a lot of heat, because dog people can be a bit odd. :D Deed not breed might rhyme nicely but some breeds have statistically FAR higher incidences of violent attacks on humans.

I personally think YANBU. About 2/3 of dog bites are from Pit Bulls and Rottweilers, according to a number of hospital studies. I'm not convinced on all the breeds that you list, though.

Labrador, honestly its all there buried somewhere, i hate linking attacks by other breeds as i have to defend 2 staffies but people just haven't got a clue. Any dog can attack and kill, they are animals

Boy 3 left horrific facial injuries Labrador savages here

Mother’s arm ripped open by Labrador attack here

labrador attacks girl of four here

Not deaths as luckily they were stopped would they have killed idk, non of them made the national press by the looks of it, had it been a staffie it would have been on the front of all the national's. I bet all these lab owners thought they had a lovely family pet because of course only staffies/alsations and rottis attack people. Its ignorant and dangerous to bill any breed as the perfect family pet who never attack when they do

Could go on and on posting 100's of links from the local news about every breed of dog, there all there just look for them

Info here regarding dog bites and breeds

singsong isn't it important to distinguish between desirable biting and unprovoked biting? For instance the police dog who bites to pin, their bite would still be included in the statistics, but it's what they've been trained to do.

sing I obviously have a broken GSD then, as he is 12 and never bitten anyone. so bad of him not to live up to his reputation of a biter!

Blue if bring a dog lover makes me "a little bit odd" then so be it!

*being (bloody phone)

You're going to get a lot of heat, because dog people can be a bit odd. :D Deed not breed might rhyme nicely but some breeds have statistically FAR higher incidences of violent attacks on humans.

Staffies aren't even in the top 10 and when you think of how many staffies there are compared to other breed's if they were that dangerous frankly you would see a lot more attacks

Fatty I always say my GSDs are faulty, they couldn't be further from the stereotype if they tried. My DS3 was 1 year old when we got them as pups and the bond they share is amazing

and there I was thinking it was cat people that had the reputation for being a bit crazy !
I don't mind being odd though, I have a vicious terrible nasty doggy on my side

Dogbite.org research this org before you quote them, they are biased and not impartial, they are also American

Do those statistics take into account things like the different popularity of various breeds? Obviously, labs are going to bite more people than, say, Swedish Vallhunds, just because there are more labs than Vallhunds. The Vallhunds might be more likely to bite than labs, but the relative popularity could skew the statistics the other way. GSDs are the fourth most popular registered breed in the UK.

Yes, some breed do bite statistically more often but many breeds are trained to bite.
And yes, of course a bigger, stronger dog can always inflict more damage than a tiny dog - any dog can bite. Nobody who knows dogs would reasonably deny that.

This thread is about banning certain breeds and I think that is utter tosh and actually counterproductive because it a. makes certain breeds who have a tough reputation more desirable to certain sociopathic types who train them to be aggressive and mistreat them with makes them aggressive and then they bite and lo - aggressive breed and b. if give a false sense of security to some people that their choses breed is 'safe'.

I love dogs btw, hoping to own one very, very soon, but I do get irked about the ignorance surrounding dog behaviour tbh.

Again it is closing down a discussion about dogs killing people by listing a few horrid attacks as they are a google search will bring up many links to Rottweilers and Staffies attacking viciously at times it has been fatal

Any dog attack that has killed a child will make the news the give a dog a bad name is not impacting dogs behaviour is it

As Singsongsung said there is a reason why Rottweilers have a reputation

Are American German Shepherds different to British ones then?? Who knew...

geekymommy Dont know looks like it was made up of owners and surveys of owners, no idea how they surveyed them as it doesn't say but i take your point, i don't think there are any true stats because bites from smaller dogs go unreported or don't need medical attention. I don't think they will be able to collect 100% accurate data unless every single bite is reported and logged

yep. rotties have a rep because people trained them to bite or didn't behave appropriately around an animal! that could happen with any animal, just happened to be rotties took the heat for a while, now it's staffies getting the crap.

If you google the history of GSDs it explains the reasons etc, I would explain on here but on my phone and it's a pita

But Freudian the fact of the matter there isn't any valid study, and probably never will be to demonstrate what you're talking about.

If we were to create a study to prove or disprove we would need to factor in:

1. How many of them there are so we can have a proportion
2. The type of training they're being given
3. The sort of environment they're living in (including owner, if there's children, other dogs)
4. Whether they are neutered
5. The sort of attack
6. Events leading up to what happened (antagonised, bizarre)

and a few more that I've forgot since making that list.

So unless that is done, the people who dislike dogs will continue reading papers and selective, biased data, and the dog owners and experts will continue trying to argue, from experience, that it isn't the breed and is in fact the factors that surround the dog.

Have a look at this:

www.ukandspain.com › dangerous-dogs
Lots of 'family dogs' mentioned. Plenty of Staffies. Some horrific injuries. A Jack Russell may nip but would be unlikely to cause anything like the damage shown here.

Having had a staffy cross something less acceptable as a houseguest, I would have him again in a heartbeat. He was polite, friendly and immaculately trained. Made my dogs look like a bunch of hooligans.

Have other breed of dogs not been treated badly or been encouraged to attack or neglected

All these used to claim this is the only reasons why some breeds have attacked fatally

Unfortunately I am sure all breeds of dogs have been treated in the same way yet the outcome is not fatal attacks

I strongly believe we should ban the breed, not the deed.

I also think bringing back dog licenses would be more workable than people think. All horses are now required to have passports and have been for some time- it's for different reasons, primarily linked to drugs and human consumption as well as identification. The thing is, although not everyone complies, the vast majority do, and it does help the problem. A properly enforced dog licensing system could work- or at least improve things.

When I was in sixth form, I worked in a dog boarding kennels, so came into contact with a wide range of dogs- the kennel was also involved in GSD and rottweiler re homing, yet I never met an aggressive member of either of these breeds. I never met a staffie that was dangerous, although a few of them were rather stupid :P

The two most aggressive dogs that stick in my mind were a chocolate lab and a lakeland terrier. The lab we knew was aggressive, so it was handled very carefully, and only by more experienced staff. It had been abused in the past, so its aggression was fear related. The lakeland terrier though was just awful- I have never met a dog like it- it would go for you, bite and not let go. Luckily it never bit me (although it did destroy a few pairs of my jeans. It did bite my colleague, leaving him with permanent scarring. I hope that dog was never allowed near a small child, as I do believe it was capable of killing one.

Banning breeds won't help- every dog can be taught to bite on command and be aggressive. Yes, some breeds can do more damage than others, but any big dog (e.g. labs, retrievers, setters, most hounds, pointers, great danes, newfoundlands etc) are more than capable of killing an adult without trouble and any dog can do serious harm to someone, especially a child or someone infirm.

The truth is, the DDA is totally unfit for purpose, and we need a proper law to focus on dog aggression, not the mess that currently exists.

Sorry but what?! I have two huskies. If you had truly done your research you would realise a number of things.

1. There is no such thing as a dangerous dog. Only dangerous owners who are ignorant and have no clue what they are doing. It is an animal. Treat it and respect it as such.

1. Huskies have one the softest temperament of any dog breed on earth. Any owner will tell you they do not make good guard dogs as they just want to be friends with everyone.
2. Staffordshire bill terriers were originally breed to nanny dogs for Victorian children.
3. My dogs (Siberian Huskies) have been my babies for the last 5 years. They have not been replaced by my LO but they do know the pecking order. They do as they are asked and I trust them around LO even though I never leave them alone. And yes I have been called an bad mother for having these 'dangerous' dogs and LO together.
4. When dogs attack the media vilifies the breed. The amplification spiral arises. There is always a back story. A dog will NEVER just flip and turn on it's family. It has either been tormented, abused, it's hurt in some way and the injury has been caught or many other similar reasons.
5. In most dog attack stories with children - the child was left alone 'for alone a minute'. I do not by that statement blame the child at all. A child does not know when a dog wants to be left alone or is too excitable. Would you leave your hold alone with a wolf? Same principle.

So yes extremely unreasonable. It's ok to not like dogs, it's ok to not like certain breeds. But to ban effectively every breed that grows above your ankle is ridiculous and frankly punishing every responsible dog owner in the UK!

Any dog attack that has killed a child will make the news the give a dog a bad name is not impacting dogs behaviour is it

Yes they can but people focus on staffies/ rotties etc so people get other breeds thinking they have the perfect pet who won't bite because only staffies etc do. Its dangerous imo, any breed can bite and kill, no dog should be left by themselves with a child

I once read a story about a staffie who had bit a kid in the face, got taken away to to be destroyed, they found a bic pen lid wedged deep in its ear canal, there was the reason why the dog bit the kid.

A lot of attacks if you look into them you can see a reason for them, don't just read the mail/mirror articles which are skewered, delve deeper and get more info. Sometimes it's people owning a non excempted pit bull and then you find the neighbours have been complaining for months about it being aggressive or fighting with other dogs, being used as a status dog, being left in the yard with no exercise.

And of course there are some dogs who have been looked after and do just go for no reason who probably have some health issue, bad breeding, in breeding, wired faulty.

Then you have the 2300 excempted pit bulls, why have more of these not killed anyone if they are so dangerous?