Restricred breed list - omfg

DamagedTrax · 17-12-2011 9:58pm

luckyfrank wrote: »

Im shocked when i read that husky is the 4th most dangerous breed of dog, i just dont understand it, i think it must be to do with there popularity and mixed with bad owners

http://dangerousdogs.net/

you might want to find more reliable sources, that page is a joke. they cant even post a pic of a real PBT. this is an amercian bully (an X of pitbull and american staffy and bulldog as far as i know)

this is a good example of pitbull terrier.

It is common knowledge that this dog breed can even mangle the human to death as pit bull locks its jaws onto the booty until it is dead.

it is common knowledge that no breed has the physical capabilities to lock their jaws onto "the booty"

Discodog · 18-12-2011 1:50am

luckyfrank wrote: »

Im shocked when i read that husky is the 4th most dangerous breed of dog, i just dont understand it, i think it must be to do with there popularity and mixed with bad owners

http://dangerousdogs.net/

I guess that no matter how much people explain that there is no such thing as a dangerous breed there will be some who still believe that there is.

wonderfulname · 18-12-2011 2:32am

luckyfrank wrote: »

Im shocked when i read that husky is the 4th most dangerous breed of dog, i just dont understand it, i think it must be to do with there popularity and mixed with bad owners

http://dangerousdogs.net/

You do realise you just took the word of one, unverifiable, personal website as the truth just because it's a static page on the net?

Unless it's first hand information or linked directly to first hand information you just don't do that, if I was bothered I could set up a considerably more professional looking page in a few minutes and at minimal cost claiming Jack Russell pups are the no.1 killers in south east Asia.

That site gives absolutely no valid reason why a husky could be deemed the 4th most dangerous breed.

The Sweeper · 18-12-2011 9:18am

Vince32 wrote: »

I don't know what to say here, I can see both sides of the fence, I guess the only way to reverse the law would be to prove somehow that it doesn't work as intended or at all, or to show it makes the situation worse in general terms.

Vince32, this has been proven. It's been proven in Germany, Italy and Holland, some states in the US and in Calgary. That's why breed specific legislation has been overturned.

It's actually very difficult to get dog bite statistics for breeds. It's not collected in hospital data and anyone who claims it is, well they're pulling your leg. The only time breed specific dog attack data has been collected in a hospital setting it's been done by specific study groups over the course of say, one month, in an agreed single hospital setting.

All hospital inpatient stays in Western countries are subject to data anlaysis using the International Classification of Diseases (currently the 10th edition - ICD-10). ICD-10 has an alphanumeric code related to every single ailment and procedure you could possibly think of.

Hospitals employ specialist clinical coders who analyse every patient history on discharge and log a series of codes to identify what the patient had done to them.

Up to recently the ICD had a single code for dog injury, and if you had to spend a night in hospital beause you'd been bitten by a dog, the reason for your inpatient stay was coded with that code. Additionally, if your overzealous dog greeted you by bouncing on you when you came home and they knocked you over and you sprained your wrist, the reason for your inpatient stay was coded with that same code.

The latest revision has two sub-codes - one specifically for a dog bite, the other for contact with a dog (covers all those other innocuous injuries). So now they do collect dog bite data, but I can absolutely guarantee you that none of that data focuses in any way on the breed responsible for the bite.

The ICD information is where the government gets its mainline dog bite statistics from - that's how they know the number of people hospitalised due to dog bites every year. They can also backwards extrapolate to get additional data that would attest to the severity of the bite, the age of the victim and their residential postcode.

However it was when specialist research groups started to do things like sit in A&E departments for a few months and interview dog bite victims, that's when they started to realise - no single breed is any more implicated than any other breed. Logically, large dogs can do more damage than small dogs in a sustained attack, but that 'large dogs' remit includes the adorable family golden retriever, the bernese mountain dog and the great dane, for instance - none of whom are dogs you associate with dog bite incidents.

As it stands breed specific legislation is not proven, in any jurisdiction, to have any positive impact on dog bite incidence. There is no statistical evidence, anywhere that the legislation has been implemented, that it makes the blindest bit of difference whatsoever to the actual number of people hospitalised for dog bites.

Additionally, the enforcement of BSL costs a lot of money that would be better redirected into programs of training and education for the public and dog owners and into doing things like setting up off-leash parks, river walks and beaches so owners have places they can run their dogs and socialise them to ensure they're happy members of society.

Last thing - when BSL comes into legislation in a region, it arguably increases the risk to the public from aggressive dogs. Irresponsible owners deliberately stray their dogs as they don't want to be fined for owning an unregistered restricted breed. They also hide the dogs and don't socialise them for the same reasons. The state of Victoria, Australia, implemented breed specific legislation in September 2011 in response to a fatal attack on a child in Melbourne's outer suburbs. They introduced a one-month amnesty where anyone owning a restricted breed could register it and abide by guidelines to keep it always muzzled and leashed, desexed and kept in a locked run or inside the house at all times when it wasn't on a leash.

The media initially praised the strict new laws, but it's not even three months, dog attacks are continuing, the appeals to the VCAT tribunal from owners who believe their dog has been incorrectly identified as a restricted breed (like Lennox) have started, with all of the incumbent expense to the taxpayer and stress, and dog wardens and members of the public have been attacked by aggressive dogs deliberately strayed by irresponsible owners.

Oh - and dogs are still biting kids all over the state, because BSL doesn't work.

Wibbs · 18-12-2011 11:24am

DamagedTrax wrote: »

it is common knowledge that no breed has the physical capabilities to lock their jaws onto "the booty"

+1, yet how many eejits do you hear say this about all sorts of breeds? Kerry Blues are another I've heard this said about. "backward facing teeth you know? Yes. Can't let go once they bite". Not exactly a good evolutionary bet that one. PBT's don't even have that high a bite strength. GSD's and Rotties have higher. By a 100ft lbs plus higher. The average Lab isn't far off PBT bite strength. A great dane has higher again. As would an Irish wolfhound.

The RB list is daft IMHO. The whole dog biting lark is pretty skewed too. People will go batshít crazy if a dog even nips them and may even have it destroyed. You'll get plenty of people right behind them too. "Oh it's tasted blood you know. Never trust that dog again" kinda guff. Yet the same people will barely bat an eyelid if a pet cat scrapes or bites them. I seem to really freak cats out for some reason and cats have had a go at me once or twice, usually because I was being stupid and not reading the obvious signs for "feck off!". At no point would I suggest that any of those moggies be put down for being dangerous. Horses can be bitey and stampy and kicky if you're not careful yet the same handwringing nonsense isn't brought to bear on them. I wonder how many horses have been shot for having a nibble or kicking? Pretty few in number I'd imagine. Hamsters can bite. Parrots can give you a right nasty wound, yet again we don't have the placards out for their blood. TBH given the dog is an apex predator living in our homes and walking on our streets it actually amazes me how few actual attacks there are.

Discodog · 18-12-2011 11:58am

BSL masks the real problem of irresponsible owners.

BSL does nothing to reduce dog bites from other breeds.

You can't genetically test a breed so you can only identify it by it's appearance. This means that many dogs are misidentified & wrongly killed.

BSL means that Wardens have to focus on specific breeds rather than dangerous dogs. It can actually cause more bites.

The kind of people who encourage aggressive behaviour or are generally irresponsible owners won't abide with the law. If one breed is banned they will move on to a different breed.

BSL punishes responsible owners just because they have the wrong breed. The irresponsible owners will often hide or abandon their banned dog.

We need to focus on responsible ownership not useless legislation.

Hellrazer · 18-12-2011 12:52pm

Discodog wrote: »

We need to focus on responsible ownership not useless legislation.

+1

This is the real source of the problem.Its the little scumbags that think owning a so called restricted breed makes them look cool.

In the last few months Ive seen at least five 15-16 year olds walking around with Akitas--they are barely big enough themselves to handle a dog that powerful but for some reason they think its great to be seen with one.

Theres one bloke Ive seen that keeps setting his Akita on smaller dogs--well you know winding the dog up while hes walking it and a smaller dog walks past.Thats a disaster waiting to happen.

Vince32 · 18-12-2011 2:15pm

I do believe there are no bad dogs, only bad owners, who ever lets animals get into this condition should be jailed or shot

Zapperzy · 18-12-2011 2:31pm

Vince32 wrote: »

I do believe there are no bad dogs, only bad owners, who ever lets animals get into this condition should be jailed or shot

You post 2 photos that reinforce the stereotypical pit bulls/rotties are aggressive and snack on small child idea, photos I believe I have seen used in a few tabloid headlines. Then post a completely non-related photo of an obese rottie and change the subject altogether, apart from being one of the restricted breeds what else has it got to do with the subject?

Discodog · 18-12-2011 3:17pm

Vince32 wrote: »

I do believe there are no bad dogs,

Then why post pics of dogs being made to look aggressive

?

I can almost hear the press photographer saying "Can you get him to foam at the mouth"

Shanao · 18-12-2011 3:47pm

Hellrazer wrote: »

+1

This is the real source of the problem.Its the little scumbags that think owning a so called restricted breed makes them look cool.

In the last few months Ive seen at least five 15-16 year olds walking around with Akitas--they are barely big enough themselves to handle a dog that powerful but for some reason they think its great to be seen with one.

Theres one bloke Ive seen that keeps setting his Akita on smaller dogs--well you know winding the dog up while hes walking it and a smaller dog walks past.Thats a disaster waiting to happen.

FFS, I'm getting worried about the akita in this country. There are so many of them turning up in the pounds already because people dont realise that they NEED a lot of work, and then you get idiots like that. If that dog ever got off lead, you can bet that a small dog would be killed in an instant. They have a high prey drive, there's no bloody need to reinforce that with their own species!! Someone told me once that he would love to see my fella get into a fight cos he'd 'mangle any other dog'. I told him to F*** Off, my dog would roll over on his back before he'd fight another dog cos he's well-trained and loves other dogs. Why the hell do people only want these dogs to look tough, they are big soppy bears!! If people continue to take that kind of attitude with an akita, the amount of bites credited to akitas is going to rise even more.

Discodog · 18-12-2011 4:48pm

I fear that the UK trend for "weapon" dogs will increase here. With the penalties for carrying weapons it can seem to make more sense for these people to have a vicious dog. I have heard of cases in the UK where a dog has been used to intimidate a victim - hand over your phone or the dog will bite you. If the dog bites & the victim goes to the police, it's easy for the owner to blame the dog.

One of the reasons why the UK rescues are full of Staffies is that some do not consider them "hard enough" & they are going for bigger breeds.

But also the increase in burglary & theft is encouraging people to get a guard dog. I have seen countless threads on Boards where people have been recommended to get a dog to protect their home. This is a recipe for dog bites & again it will be the poor dog, who is doing as he has been trained, that faces the consequences.

I hope that the UK drops it's BSL & focuses on penalties for owners. If your dog bites, because you have encouraged it to, then you should be made to pay for it's rehabilitation & care.

Jackasaurus rex · 18-12-2011 6:11pm

The restricted list seams to me to be the list of dogs that people afraid of dogs find the scariest

toadfly · 18-12-2011 6:13pm

Jackasaurus rex wrote: »

The restricted list seams to me to be the list of dogs that people afraid of dogs find the scariest

Yes which proves it'd based on appearance. Pure racism!

Discodog · 18-12-2011 6:49pm

Jackasaurus rex wrote: »

The restricted list seams to me to be the list of dogs that people afraid of dogs find the scariest

I think that you are right but is their fear based on so called reputation ? How many of these people have ever really got to know a breed that they find scary ?

It may be that people who are afraid of dogs are more likely to get bitten as their fear could be perceived as a threat by the dog. Really it is up to anyone with a fear or phobia, that they are likely to encounter frequently, to seek help to conquer it.

If you met a Pit Bull wearing one of these you might see it as a threat.

However if he had a collar like this you might view the dog very differently.

The problem is that when you see a restricted breed it may be wearing a muzzle, not because it is dangerous but because of the law. So the restricted breed regulations actually make the perception even worse. If it wasn't for the muzzle you might not give the dog a second glance.

Jackasaurus rex · 18-12-2011 10:25pm

there is perception based unfortunately because of that list and the media in general that certain dogs are bad. a friend of mine has a lovely pit bull that was off the lead at a field near his house. some old dear walking by said its lovely and asked what it was. as soon as he told her it was a pitbull her face dropped and she said it should be muzzled and they are vicious.

Wibbs · 18-12-2011 10:45pm

Jackasaurus rex wrote: »

The restricted list seams to me to be the list of dogs that people afraid of dogs find the scariest

+1. The two bodyshapes that seem to trigger it are the "wolf" look, the various husky breeds, the GSD, that sort of thing. The other is the stocky type dog, the "Bouncer" type

, the PBT, the rotties etc. I can somewhat understand the wolf part as that could be a very old danger meme and fairytales and horror movies don't help. The Bouncer type is mostly to do with media IMHO. It's a weird fear too, for the most part. An Irish wolfhound would not be seen as threatening as a pitbull for many if not most, but an Irish wolfhound would have a much more damaging bite if it decided to get aggressive and far more bulk behind it. Much more. Bite strength is mostly to do with size of the head and muzzle. And the idea that pitbulls were "bred that way", Irish wolfhounds were bred to hunt down and kill wolves*.

*interesting story behind them and for such an Irish dog, they had at one point a certain Oliver Cromwell to thank for their promotion.

DamagedTrax · 18-12-2011 10:46pm

Jackasaurus rex wrote: »

there is perception based unfortunately because of that list and the media in general that certain dogs are bad. a friend of mine has a lovely pit bull that was off the lead at a field near his house. some old dear walking by said its lovely and asked what it was. as soon as he told her it was a pitbull her face dropped and she said it should be muzzled and they are vicious.

with pitbulls i do think muzzling is acceptable but should still be owners choice, only because some of them have a seriously high prey drive and dog aggresion is common. they are bred to be game dogs afterall. i know a few PBT owners who wouldnt go out without a muzzle, law or no law.

Wibbs · 18-12-2011 10:50pm

Yes it defo depends on the individual dog alright. Though huskies aren't on the list AFAIR and they have very high prey drive (in general of course).

Vince32 · 18-12-2011 11:14pm

Zapp sorry I missed your question,

I thought the caption at the bottom was clear enough, but I'll explain further for the sake of clarity, let me preface my remark by saying that dogs are like people in the sense that none are born bad / evil

There are some who due to lack of training, or trained to attack "sick-em boy" etc, and I wanted to suggest that these owners that do not take care of their animals in a responsible manner should be punished alot more than the law currently allows, and few thousand euros compensation to the families is of little comfort.

The pic on the obese dog was another example of buttholes wanting the biggest meanest dog they can get, and then staining the rep of all dogs in its breed or size. It's not acceptable and should not be allowed.

In my opinion these owners should be jailed, and fined far more than the law allows at the moment, and if the dog is trained to attack, or not trained to be passive the onus of attack falls squarely on the owners of the animal.

That's all, I wasn't trying to steer the thread off topic.

friedcircuits · 22-12-2011 8:49pm

Just reading this today because there is a lab in my estate let out every evening from a house across the road and he stands in the middle of the road and barks at cars then moves then proceeds to chase the car also runs at and barks at passers-by very annoying dog. Does anyone have a draft of a letter I can anonymously put in their letter box, thanks. Also I have a German Shepard who has to be the biggest child I know, doesn't have a bad bone in his body, I do have him on a lead but would never ever muzzle him. I agree it's the dog owners not the dogs themselves for example there is two bijon frise in my estate when I walk my German Shepard they are the agressors and they are not the only aggressers in the estate my fella walks calmly by them all but me knowing if I let him off the lead and he did the same thing dog warden etc would be called. I think alot of people have alot of misconceptions. Anyways I'll stop now! But if anyone has a draft letter for the problem above thanks.

ppink · 22-12-2011 11:12pm

Wibbs wrote: »

+1. The two bodyshapes that seem to trigger it are the "wolf" look, the various husky breeds, the GSD, that sort of thing. The other is the stocky type dog, the "Bouncer" type , the PBT, the rotties etc. I can somewhat understand the wolf part as that could be a very old danger meme and fairytales and horror movies don't help. The Bouncer type is mostly to do with media IMHO. It's a weird fear too, for the most part. An Irish wolfhound would not be seen as threatening as a pitbull for many if not most, but an Irish wolfhound would have a much more damaging bite if it decided to get aggressive and far more bulk behind it. Much more. Bite strength is mostly to do with size of the head and muzzle. And the idea that pitbulls were "bred that way", Irish wolfhounds were bred to hunt down and kill wolves*.
*interesting story behind them and for such an Irish dog, they had at one point a certain Oliver Cromwell to thank for their promotion.

I was just thinking is it also who is on the other end of the lead? I dont mean that in a bad way but I have never come across anyone really who is scared of my GSD's, even with their muzzles on. Most people will stop and ask about them. We took them walking in Killarney national park with their muzzles on and I could not even count the amount of people who came up to us asking could they rub them etc. Same thing in Ballina park.

On the other hand I know loads of people who are scared of a guy near us who walks his rottweiler off lead and another guy with GSD's.
Maybe there is nothing in it but I would be interested to know if the females walking the RB's have the same reaction as males.

lrushe · 22-12-2011 11:54pm

Don't know if me being female has an effect on people's reaction to my Rottie but I do think the fact that she is walked with a Chihuahua certainly buts people more at ease around her. Ironically my Rottie is the most friendly of my 3 dogs!

piperh · 23-12-2011 12:24am

Its quite amusing sometimes as i walk my 2 on haltis and the amount of times i get asked if they are vicious or do they bite, I walked past a woman the other night and she turned to her friend and said look they must both be nasty. People often mistake the halti for a muzzle. My 2 are woosies and would hide behind me :rolleyes:

Restricred breed list - omfg

Comments