To want a ban on dangerous dogs as pets?

[humanity15]

I feel this is a matter of public safety and people need to be informed.

Whilst working for a well known dog rescue charity I was attacked by a breed banned in many countries, but not here.
Because it was not banned it was taken in just like any other dog.

My story can be found on youtube.

With many years of experience in the dog sector what I see happening on our streets right now is frightening.

Those advising the government on dangerous dogs are giving bad advice and as a result putting people's lives at risk.

People do not understand dogs, especially genetics. Because of this attacks will keep happening and people are going to get killed.

All dogs have inherited characteristics. Certain ones are stronger in certain breeds depending on what they were originally bred for.

Although all dogs can bite, there is a huge difference in why they bite and this unless understood could prove fatal.

To communicate a dog will often give signals. So if it feels uncomfortable with someone coming too close it may put its ears back, cower, tuck its tail in etc.
If these signs are ignored the dog may resort to biting as a last resort.
Once it has effectively communicated, with the person moving away it will stop.

This is totally different to a dog biting because it has been bred to fight and has a strong drive to do so.

This drive has been bred into certain breeds of dogs on purpose. How strong that drive will be different for every individual dog depending on what has been passed down.
No amount of good will is going to change this.
This is your starting point before any external influences.

Instead of breeding that instinct out what we are now seeing is the result of the opposite having been done.
Individual dogs that have shown high aggression have been bred from resulting in literally ticking timebombs now out on our streets.

No amount of cute photos or affection will change this.
No dog trainer or behaviourist no matter how good can do anything because this is in the dogs genes.
All that can be done is for this instinct to be surpressed, it cannot be removed.
At some point under certain circumstances it will come out.

If you have a dog with a high drive to fight you could be in serious trouble and so can anyone who encounters that dog.

When it takes sometimes five people and tazers to get a dog off someone that is serious.

• This is what people are not being told but what they need to know.

Dogs are not good or bad, they just are.

Just because a dog brings you something because it was bred to retrieve does not make it bad.
This is the same for a dog bred to fight. It is doing what we have basically programmed it to do.
The fact we see one instinct as acceptable and one not is not the dogs fault, it is ours.
We are the ones who have brought both these dogs into our homes and labelled them as pets.
Certain dogs should never have been expected to fulfil this role.

Dogs are not morally driven, they will not sit and contemplate what they are about to do they just react.

They have the mental age of a toddler, a young child at best.

It is so important we understand and remember this to keep everyone safe.

I agree with this. I am morally opposed to killing animals and acknowledge that no dog "deserves" capital punishment, but the reality is we do not have the resources to take care of dangerous dogs. It's either house them forever in a shelter (which is a very stressful life for them, and takes up resources for adoptable animals), or lie about their risk to the public in order to adopt them, which leads to maulings of humans, pets and wildlife.

At some point, euthanasia is the least worst option for the suffering of both the dangerous dog and any future victims.

@humanity15 I read the whole thing before replying. There's so much I want to say but it would likely be outing as I work in a related field / sector to you.

I can only suggest that you and other posters look at the work being done by International Companion Animal Management (ICAM) and also advocacy work in the U.K. by rescues such as Hope Rescue and others. You talk about the Dog Bite group at Parliament, so you are more educated than most, but breed banning legislation has been proven not to be effective, other countries handle this differently and it's not by going down the 'pro life' / 'let's save them all' route the US is on.

@summergrey

Breed banning legislation is only ineffective when either un-enforced, or very localised, as it is in North America where different districts of different towns can have different bylaws from one another.

The Dangerous Dogs Act is a success in my opinion, you could count the number of dog bite deaths on one hand before pitbulls were re-bred to be giant (XL bullies) and got through under a loophole, which has caused dog bite deaths to sky rocket.

How do you enforce breed bans when most dogs are crosses now. Loads of people I know with dogs they're all imported from Romania and they are put up for adoption without a clue what breed they are, they're just classed as mixed.

I have always wondered about dangerous dogs in shelters and the staff who have to manage them.

If you look at the big shelters in any city the majority of dogs are bullies and the like, I'm guessing many are there because they have been taken off irresponsible owners so it's a perfect storm- dogs capable of doing serious damage mixed with a dodgy history.

My last visit to Liverpool o was shocked by how many 'homeless' men begging were sat with massive bully type dogs not on leads it was genuinely terrifying and their rescue centres seem to reflect this.

Everyone needs to start being honest about the fact this is a genuine problem and maybe start making difficult decisions to stop rehoming as well as tackling the trade and ownership issues

I also do always wonder what life must be like for these scallies that have the dogs like I get they buzz off people being scared of them but surely they must be scared too and ground down by trying to manage these dogs.
I've seen the half witted owners look like they are on edge handling their muscle mutants.

That's your view. I'm curious what facts and information you basing your opinion on?

Most legal animal welfare experts agree that the Dangerous Dogs Act is not a success but rather a failure of adequate policy. Its a rushed badly worded piece of legislation. It could have been fixed many times over, some issues with it could even have been closed recently through the Kept Animals Bill which the government dropped earlier this year.

Research shows that bites numbers have not decreased since the introduction of the Dangerous Dog Act but rather the overall dog population fell then rose again which accounts for the increase in news stories about serious bites.

Also let's not forget that those pandemic puppies are now adult dogs, most with some behavioural issue, many related to lack of appropriate socialisation in puppyhood. BVA are doing research on this.

That is one of the many many ways that breed specific legislation fails. Even now, it's not DNA that is used to decide if a cross breed is 'technically' a pit bull and so a banned breed to be destroyed. It's an opinion of someone. Some are better trained than others, some verdicts are based on photos, some on in person visit to the dog, etc. it's very badly applied. Plus most councils no longer have funding for dog warden so who is checking? The application of it is a minefield.

Banning breeds doesn’t work. A dog isn’t nasty and unpredictable due to a breed.

I disagree. Physical and mental characteristics carefully and intensely bred in can be good or very bad. My Labrador was bred to be in water, guess what - he absolutely adores it and swims whenever he can. He also fetches things for us. My previous collie always tried to round up the children. When I think of dogs bred with very large jaws for fighting I really shudder to think of them as a family dog. Of course they CAN be lovely and a Labrador can be nasty but you have to look at the statistics.

Ovcharka’s are literally bred to fight off wolves and bears, my uncle has two for exactly that purpose (not in the UK, obviously). They’re also the preferred breed to use in Russian prisons. They’re beautiful, but they’re not a bigger, fluffier version of a Labrador.

This argument is getting so tired now. How many Greyhounds or Akitas are you seeing killing people? The Husky with the baby is hugely sad, but a bit of a freak one - and frankly those quoting breeds that have killed tiny babies is laughable. It's tragic and horrific, but it is simply not the same as dogs that can and are killing adults or causing them to lose limbs/other life-changing injuries.

I honestly don't know what the answer is. I get the argument that banning one breed just moves it all on to another, and there seems an endless supply of problem breeds waiting in the wings. Very few households will cope well with e.g. Ovcharka or Cane Corso, but their easy and frighteningly cheap availability is there for all to see.

Judgemental perhaps, but even suing doesn't seem to be any deterrent, as let's face it so many of those who are causing this issue have nothing much to be sued for anyway. 'Make an example of them' prison sentences for owners are about the only deterrent I can see having any effect, eventually.

Dog lovers may disagree (although I think true dog lovers should want some accountability for irresponsible owners) but I think all dog owners should have to hold licences for their dogs and have passed some kind of basic training in dog handling. Immediate consequences if you’re in public with a dog and found to be without your licence / proof when asked by police etc. Much like a car or gun.
I don’t care about the breed, poorly cared for dogs are dangerous to humans and other animals.

I think that's such a poor argument. Shall we only ban breeds that have killed multiple people? It proves that no dog can be trusted. What about the police dog that went rogue the other week and attacked it's handler? One presumes it was incredibly well trained. It was euthanized.

I'm curious those who are suggesting going back to dog licenses, who do you expect will check those? There is no enforcement now from local councils for things that already require it like breeder licenses . There is no money for this. Dog wardens were do still exist are unqualified and paid terribly. Would you take the job on those conditions? I wouldn't.

I do think something needs to change but more public attitude / behaviour towards owning dogs and pets in general.

@Cherrysoup perhaps the answer is dog licences and approved breeds for households then? Small/ medium non muscular/ soft bite dogs for urban households only. Then working breeds are available on a different licence to people that can actually justify having them. It would mean complete eradication of the pit bull type dog, and the only people with guardian and mastiff breeds will be livestock farmers and mountain rescue teams or whatever. In my opinion, if you’re not under threat of being attacked by lions/ wolves/ bears then the only reason to have a powerful dog is with the intent it might harm another human on your behalf which makes it a weapon, just like a knife or gun.

Looking at a certain type of owner round here-teenage lads teaching their staffs to swing from tree branches-that sounds sensible. I remember watching a puppy programme where a woman bought a giant breed yet lived in a small upstairs flat and was then tearing out her hair over toilet training.

@summergrey the DVLA do a fantastic job of monitoring and fining vehicle owners that break the rules, this is funded by taxes associated with motoring. Works a treat. So your ‘Dog tax’ or ‘Dog licence’ fee each year pays for the admin to issue it and enforce it and it comes with the strings attached of mandatory neutering , health care and insurance. The cost and accountability will drive out the scumbags who abuse animals and almost eradicate the need for shelters. Maybe add in a compulsory exam too, to make sure the owner is capable of managing the responsibility. Like driving, it should be considered a burden of responsibility and a privilege.

@Cherrysoup I know exactly what you mean. There are some dangerously thick people around that need protecting from themselves. A dog should be a companion in the home, therefore something small and gentle is adequate. Whenever I see a young man walking one of these muscular,ugly dogs I think the same thing as I do when I see and hear them driving noisy cars like they have a death wish, that he has the IQ of a toilet brush and his parents have failed him.

Can’t help but agree! I’ve watched the breed change from staffy to mastiff over the years, been here over 20 years. Recently, I’ve noticed xl bullys arriving (obviously the cockapoo collection has exploded too!)

Some delightful teenage girl saw that I’d put myself behind a gate as her mastiff had free run and my dog would’ve gone for it, he was terrified of other dogs so we avoided confrontations because he would be very defensive. She very deliberately ignored me asking her to recall her dog, despite her mate telling her the same. I just don’t understand why she did that. What was she trying to prove? That she was ‘hard’? I just thought she was ignorant.

I knew you'd be posting about dogs trust before I even watched your video. The issue with dogs trust is they don't like to euthanise dogs and that has been their slogan for a long time now.
You can't save every dog. You can't help every dog. Not every dog is safe to rehome.

Many dogs come from a very traumatic background, might have other health issues, and then the stress of kennels is very difficult for them.

Banning breeds is clearly not the answer because there are other factors that contribute. People are currently breeding from lockdown dogs who are passing on behavioural traits and there are now lots of adolescent dogs running about that are terrified of the world. Puppy farming is a million pound industry.

People have ridiculous expectations of dogs and put them in dangerous situations involving children, which results in dogs biting children within their own household. Once upon a time you got a dog if your lifestyle suited the dog, and your home environment. Now they're a right of passage.
I've lost track of the amount of people that have got cockapoos (who have SO MANY issues as a breed, ask any behaviourist what they think of cockapoos and they roll their eyes) because they "want them to be support dogs for their children". It's the latest trend, the dogs (who are often bred in bad conditions or from poor lines behaviourally) are being overwhelmed, poked, prodded, squeezed, and hugged. Surprise surprise, one day the dog growls at the child and everyone is up in arms about it.

ALL rescue centres need to assess dogs carefully and make some careful decisions if a dog could genuinely be a risk to the public as well as a risk to staff. It's harsh but it's a safety thing. It also means kennel space would be available for dogs who are much more 'adoptable'.

ALL professionals working with dogs need to state very clearly any risks associated with the dog's behaviour and environments that they absolutely should not be put in.

Dog licences should be reintroduced with compulsory training/behaviour support by a QUALIFIED and CERTIFIED professional, not some idiot down the road who has had dogs for 20 years. If people can't afford this then tough, don't get a dog.

If your dog is running around dangerously out of control because you haven't bothered to train any recall and don't like the idea of a longline, you should be held accountable for that. I'm sick of dogs on leads being traumatised by being flattened by labradors, or children being knocked over by friendly dogs, and hurt badly as a result.

Dogs need to stop being imported from abroad, too.

Agree @Viralsunflower - particularly the point about how often people get a dog, but it's not really a dog they want. They want some kind of therapy or robot or toy.

Whilst dog's behaviour is incredibly elastic and accomodating, they are still animals with their owns wants, needs, dislikes etc. They will need an environment and care that meets those needs - not just fit 100% alongside a human life.

They will need some variety of digging, barking, chewing, rolling in poo, running. They will only tolerate so much touching, hugging, taking away of their favourite toy. They communicate in totally different ways to apes. They will do their very best to bridge the gap between our comm style and theirs, but they won't fully close the gap. We need to do the hard work to achieve that.

But many people (with dogs) don't. They still insist a waggy tail is always a happy tail. A dog that stays still while a toddler hugs them is happy to be hugged. That a growling dog is a dangerous dog. etc etc.

And yes, sadly, I think more rescues now need to address the question of behavioural euthanasia and be more prepared to make that decision.

Any dog that can take down an average sized adult human and inflict serious damage/kill one/can’t be stopped from attack by one, should be banned as pets. Only farmers or security personnel (both with licenses) should be permitted to have strong breeds.

I agree with above. Could be decided on a combination of breed and weight. It's ridiculous that some humans choose to have pets that can, and often do, kill small children, large animals, elderly people and even themselves. You should have to apply for a particular licence for these types of daphs, and the poor XL Bullys should clearly be retired as a breed. The numerous example of attacks by them on CCTv footage shows that they don't behave in normal or acceptable ways for pet dogs and they've been bred like that, they need to die out

I agree OP, but I can't imagine how the hell it would work.

There are plenty of people who understand that certain breeds are dangerous and aggressive, and they actively want them. There's enough trouble policing these kinds of areas without adding in this.

Multiple campaign groups are calling on the government to ban American bully type dogs including XL bullies after a steep rise in attacks.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/government-urged-ban-xl-bullies-27621697

Agree. The dangerous breeds and crossbreeds should be banned.