Why do people keep dangerous dogs???

[Ori18]

Another little boy pronounced dead this morning on the news - the toddler who was mauled on Monday and subsequently suffered a cardiac arrest. The dogs in question are not thought to be banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act - but I'd be interested to know which breeds they were as it's quite evident that certain breeds are more dangerous to children than others - why aren't Rottweiler's on the banned list for example?

And even though Pitt Bull Terriers are banned, people still go out of their way to own them, and are then shocked when they attack small children, maul babies, tear limbs off people. It makes me so angry. Same goes for German Shepherds and Staffordshire Bull Terriers. The Bull Terrier dogs are/were specifically bred for fighting - why would you even consider having one of these types of dogs around a baby or a small child? What is going on there? Is it lack of intelligence? Lack of education? Lack of giving a fuck? Because I think there need to be more dogs on the banned list, and heavier penalties served to people who insist on breaking the law to keep these dogs.

Aggressive/dangerous dogs and babies/small children do not mix, should never be mixed and it shouldn't take more deaths for the law to change around this. AIBU?

Big dogs need big houses. They need an owner willing to walk them miles everyday. They need stimulation and proper nutrition. It sounds really offensive and terrible but bluntly they need owners with money. Too many owners coop them up in tiny terraces & are too lazy to walk them / can’t afford puppy training and then get surprised when they get aggressive.

And you’re mental thinking a toy companion breed is a friendly family dog. Some of the nastiest dogs I’ve met have been “toy dogs” sure they’ll do less damage but they usually have an attitude problem. I’d take a Rottie over toy dog anyday.

Absolutely this. The only dogs I've ever been attacked by were toy breeds. Is the fact they do less damage ok then??

Tell that to 4 year old me who had her lip ripped open by a chihuahua and needed several stitches and now has a scar. But it's ok because it didn't kill me eh. Or my DD when she was 2 as we walked past a Jack Russell minding our own business the dog turned on the lead and bit the back of her leg. She needed a couple of stitches. But that's ok because it's not too much damage eh.

Why aren't such breeds banned?

Well in 1990/1, the government wanted to look like it was 'doing something' in response to a number of high profile attacks by dogs on children.

At that point, pitbull type terriers were very popular, although the breed that triggered it all was in fact a Rottie, pitbulls had also been in the press.

The Kennel Club, the breed clubs all went to town protecting their breeds, because they're all registered breeds...

Except pitbull terriers, which are not. Funnily enough, nor are the other three breeds banned at the time, nor were there any examples of those three breeds in the country.

So four breeds were banned, one which was hugely popular but had no official representation and 3 that didn't exist here.

Hey presto, governments done something, all the little children will be safe, everyone will live happily ever after.

Only they didn't - because this didn't address WHY people were keeping bull & terrier type dogs that were a risk around small people and strangers, it didn't look at WHY these compact, economical to keep, robust, easy to train animals were popular with a disenfranchised youth in deprived areas, with drug dealers who wanted protection where having a dog is legal and a knife is not.. and so on..

It also didn't factor in that labelling these breeds dangerous, devil dogs, illegal... gave them a desirability they'd really not previously had!

And it really didn't help that you can create an illegal 'type' dog out of two perfectly legal breeds, or that a litter of puppies could contain legal and illegal animals, with no way of telling til around 9 months old.

So the numbers didn't go down. They went up. As did the numbers of people wanting them.

If you're asking why do people want them - loads of reasons!

Most of the bull breeds I have worked with are eager to please, exuberantly friendly, easy to train, easy to feed and keep, typically very healthy animals that rarely need the vets, whelp easily etc etc.

They have a stupidly high pain threshold and no understanding of anyone's (dog or human) personal space, they're still playing when everyone else is in pain and begging for mercy... so when they ARE eventually hurt - it has to be pretty bad. This tends to mean that trainers using aversives like prong collars, shock collars, yanking and kicking etc need to go very far to get a response...

In combination with that they're also remarkably fast learners AND sensitive little flowers mentally - they don't forget, and being terrier types under the bull breed macho appearance, the answer is 'get in there first, don't ask questions, just muller it'.

Another HUGE HUGE factor is the number of people who persist in teaching dogs NOT to growl - a growl is a warning, its a communication, it says 'give me more space/stop doing this' - but SO many dogs are taught via punishment NOT to give that warning..

When you combine all these elements, it is easy to end up with a dog who can do a lot of damage when they finally say 'fuck this' and are pushed over the edge.

Banning is not the answer though - we've done that since 1991 - it has not worked, by any metric you care to measure, it hasn't worked. Surely adding more breeds to a list, to try to improve on something that does not work... will also NOT WORK.

It isn't as simple as saying 'its not about the breed' because it is.. AND.. it isn't.

If we got rid of every bull breed in existance, someone would produce labradors with higher and higher pain thresholds (they're already half way there!) and a ready willingness to use aggression and bite (again.. ive met some seriously dangerous labradors as a result of horrific breeding and training).

Some people have a desire to own a dog that intimidates others.
Some people have a desire to own a dog that can do and is trained to do physical damage (look at the rise in popularity of bite sports, look at the number of celebs who have bought pre-trained protection dogs they're not remotely capable of handling or working safely).

Some of us just love the fatheaded lummoxes they are if raised properly - I won't live with em, they're too exuberant for me as I really can't be knocked around and trampled, but I bloody love training with them, they're hilarious fun, super fast to learn, do so with humour and a joy at simply working with a human.

I think the breed specific legislation is part of the problem...All dogs can be dangerous...not just those on the list...
& yes I do have a staffie who is soft as anything & I trust 100% BUT never left him alone with babies/young children because you don't know what they may do to the dog & the dogs reaction...this goes for ALL dogs though.
And don't be fooled by handbag/companion breeds, little dogs are good at jumping & you can get some really poorly though-out cross breeds with really bad temperament as with a dog of any size!

I do sort of agree with you, despite having known several of the most gentle, soppy staffies and German shepherds ever, all wonderful family pets, its clear that their size/strength/jaws could do far more damage than eg a spaniel. I know that would be down to mistreatment by owners, but how can we effectively legislate against people mistreating their dogs and making them vicious, we can't, so sadly more breeds should probably be banned.

All dogs can be dangerous - apart from the fact it’s specific breeds which, time and time again, are the ones killing people.

The only dog I've ever been bitten by (and badly) was a collie
I don't like Akitas but that's because I can't read them - I dog sat for one that was nasty, food guarding, aggressive, the lot. Mum would let the dog hold the childs arm in its mouth
Ended up doing long long walks with it daily, twice a day and dog turned very quickly into a much better behaved dog as it wasn't bored and cooped up. Did loads of activities, sniffing walks, some fast paced ones and she was so brain/body tired that she didn't have the energy to think about food guarding!

Completely unrealistic of course, and would be wildly unpopular - but I would support compulsory vetting by RSPCA/social services of any living situation involving children and dogs. SS get involved when kids are known to be living with dangerous adults yet dogs are just ignored until it’s too late.

It’s beyond scandalous that every few days there is another child killed by a domestically kept dog and more isn’t being done to address it.

I know someone with a very large and barely trained lab who has physically injured their child at least once - not serious enough to involve authorities by why the fuck should any child be subjected to living with an animal that can hurt it?

If only dogs were restricted to adult only households where everyone had the capacity to consent to the situation.

As I say, I know quite how unrealistic this is, but I can dream.

More children are run over than killed by dogs. Due in car accidents than killed by dogs. Should we ban automobiles?

Worse yet, more children are killed by their parents each year than by dogs. Why do we allow parents to keep their kids?

People don’t really understand dog behaviour and think they can control their dogs but many of them are clueless and shouldn’t be in charge of a chihuahua let alone a large powerful dog with the potential to kill

Exactly this.

Excellent post @WiddlinDiddlin

The problem is much deeper than the dog breed. It's like everything.

@DrDinosaur

Loads of people protesting there are no 'dangerous breeds'. Link to list of fatal dog attacks in uk including the breed. Complete lack of poodles, labradors, and chihuahuas on list. Multiple rottweilers, pitbulls etc on list. Still loads of people insisting its nothing to do with the breeds.

Yep. Every time there is a dog attack the same old same old comments. However, looking at recorded deaths by dog attack it's a certain small number of breed of dog that come up and up again. Obviously, it doesn't mean all of that breed are a problem but there some of them do kill and many of those have the very strong bite/jaw/muscle mass that mean they grip and don't let go.

There also appears to be a complete denial by some dog owners that their dog would never do that because x y and z. Why take the chance. Supervise the dog and don't leave with very young children , don't be complacent.

@WiddlinDiddlin That's really interesting, I didn't know the context of the banned breeds ruling and it really makes the whole thing an absolute joke, banning breeds clearly not the answer. Wish I'd read your post before posting mine!

@AHungryCaterpillar

Here we go with the “all dogs can be dangerous” nonsense well I know I would fancy my chances more with a jack Russell/poodle/chihuahua than a staff, pit or Rottweiler... some dogs have far more ability to seriously injure or kill than others so no they aren’t all as “dangerous”

This. Whilst heavily pregnant, I was savagely attacked in an unprovoked attack by a Collie-German Shepherd mix. The attack was terrifying and only stopped when my DH, having heard my screams, came running up the road and pulled the dog off.

Children don't stand a chance if a big dog (think Rottweiler, Pitbull, Bull Terrier, German Shepherd) attacks.

I question why families choose to have these breeds with small children.

Although, they are invariably the ones that come out with nonsense like "Pitties/Staffies were nanny dogs" and "Chihuahuas are more aggressive than my Pittie". It only takes one minute for your beloved "Pittie" to snap and something catastrophic to happen. Surely even the most deluded can see that a Pitbull or German Shepherd is more dangerous than a Toy Poodle.

Even small dogs should never be unsupervised with children. My small dog, from a breed known to be very good with cats and children, is NEVER left alone with my small DC.

@Nincomepoop

More children are run over than killed by dogs. Due in car accidents than killed by dogs. Should we ban automobiles?

Worse yet, more children are killed by their parents each year than by dogs. Why do we allow parents to keep their kids?

The world can turn without pets. We kind of need transport and for humans to continue (to some extent). It's unfortunate that some people are feckless parents (understatement) but short of sterilising them, there isn't much you can do.

I would be in favour of expensive dog licences but (a) how do you enforce it; and (b) it would make dog owners even more entitled because they can afford the licences - SUV driver syndrome.

Here we go with the “all dogs can be dangerous” nonsense

It isn't nonsense. Any dog can "turn". Of course, some are more dangerous than others, or have the potential to be, but that doesn't mean that a dog is safe because it is small, especially when small children are around.

A relative of mine has a black lab (got as a puppy when his child was 7) and he is the sweetest softest thing. He has been very well trained. He loves fuss from anyone but does not jump up or otherwise impose himself on people. He’s a bit of a wimp with other dogs, either submits or goes into the play position to every dog he meets even small ones. We were in a tea shop with him once, he was lying on the floor by our table (we had hold of his lead: and a baby girl came crawling towards him.. Her mum came and picked her up before she got too close but he was just wagging his tail. I can’t imagine him hurting anyone though of course I can’t know he never would.

There also appears to be a complete denial by some dog owners that their dog would never do that because x y and z. Why take the chance. Supervise the dog and don't leave with very young children , don't be complacent

and this includes keeping them under close control in public.

Ok - let's rephrase the question. You want a dangerous dog (which does include Rottweilers and German Shepherds) and you also want a child. IS IT WORTH THE RISK to put the two together?

No is the answer. And lol to all the posters who clearly think this would never happen to them, because their dog is kind and sweet and likes it when the kids rough-handle them.

The majority of replies on this thread make me lose hope..........denial denial denial

Spot on WiddlinDiddlin

Brilliant post @WiddlinDiddlin
Dog people have tried to warn buyers to be careful who they buy from and what they buy and to train their dog; but its like warning someone who isn't a mechanic to 'be careful' when they buy a second hand car.

The whole things a mess because its complicated; but when people are being killed by dogs the only possible outcome is more legislation.
If dog people can't regulate the industry - and they can't do anything about bad breeders, scammers and idiots - then government will step in and do it.

She has protected my daughter since she was born. She sat by her side when she was a baby. My daughter used to pull her ears and roll around with her on the floor. I trust my 11 year old staffy with my life and my daughters life.

I'm sure your staffy is lovely but you really are part of the problem. Your dog will be tolerant and placid until they are not and then someone could get seriously hurt or killed. Allowing your child to pull your dog's ears is very irresponsible. A dog is a living thing, not a toy, and they experience pain, they can't tell you to stop as a warning before they attack and if you know nothing about the ladder of aggression you could easily miss the warning signs which come before a bite. Please stop perpetuating the myth that it is safe to leave very small children in close proximity to dogs, whatever their breed or size, with or without supervision, it is not.

I have a 9kg terrier who loves people and has never shown any sign of aggression but there are no circumstances where I would let him interact with a small child without very close supervision and I would not even leave him unsupervised with older children. If a child pulled my dog's ears and he nipped them he would probably be PTS; I love him too much to risk that and it's my job to keep him and others safe.

YABVU. You're forgetting the 'sensible' choice family dogs can and do hurt children. Yes larger breeds are obviously capable of inflicting more harm more quickly but (anecdotal) owners tend to realise this and act accordingly. Most people I know with big dogs and children keep them supervised as second nature. I'm not saying small dog owners don't do the same, obviously but even in this thread you have people talking about 'safe' small dogs. No. No dog is 100% safe around a child and parents should always show caution.

@Ori18

Ok - let's rephrase the question. You want a dangerous dog (which does include Rottweilers and German Shepherds) and you also want a child. IS IT WORTH THE RISK to put the two together?

No is the answer. And lol to all the posters who clearly think this would never happen to them, because their dog is kind and sweet and likes it when the kids rough-handle them.

The majority of replies on this thread make me lose hope..........denial denial denial

Your rephrased question still isn't a sensible one.

It does not make sense to say a certain breed is 'a dangerous dog' (the implication being that others aren't).

Some people want a "macho" dog to compensate for their low self-esteem or feelings of disempowerment. It's a human mental health issue - and certainly the fault of the dogs.