The restricted breeds list.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Just wondering something..

How is this list compiled, what data [ie dog bites/attacks etc] is referred to and what professional opinion is sought by DCC?.

whitser

they just read the front pages of the sun paper..devil dogs etc...

Honey-ec

I'd be very surprised if they actually consult any expert or use any bite/attack data.

Slightly OT, but an American user of another forum I'm on was telling me that her local council uses the bite claims from an insurance company to compile their "restricted breed" list, and all it takes is for one single claim to have come in against a breed and they're on the list. She said it'd be funny if it wasn't so stupid - practically every single breed is on the list.

Dyr

As always, they probably just mimicked the british legislation.

Top Dog

I seriously doubt any meaningful research was done when compiling the list. Like whitser suggested, they probably just pulled it from all the tabloids or something. Given the different breeds on the list, and especially their individual temperaments, they couldn't have done any research and come up with the list they have.

EGAR

I rang the Dept and asked HOW it was drawn up, and was told the breeds were chosen according ot the damage they could do IF they attacked. Quite laughable really, considering that the only breed who killed a child in Ireland (early 80's in Cork) is not on it and no one would even suspect them. It was a brain fart by some uneducated person.

boomerang

P. Flynn as Minister for the Environment brought in this execrable piece of legislation back in 1991, after his own dog (a Lab) bit someone.

EGAR

A German breed and its crosses is leading in deadly incidents involving humans in Germany. Yet, you wont find this breed on any BSL list in any county in Germany. Just goes to show that the law is an ass.

Top Dog

EGAR wrote: »

It was a brain fart by some uneducated person.

Sums it up beautifully

lostinnappies

From my understanding of it from working in the Vets, it is generated on a few things. Firstly what the breed is bread for. Guard dogs, fighting dogs ect crossed with their past history of agression. Not only that but some dogs behaviour also lands them on the list... some dogs dont give any warnings when they are going to bite, they just turn around and bite. This lands them on the restricted breeds list, they arent banned just restricted in their freedom and must be kept under control.

~Thalia~

lostinnappies wrote: »

From my understanding of it from working in the Vets, it is generated on a few things. Firstly what the breed is bread for. Guard dogs, fighting dogs ect crossed with their past history of agression. Not only that but some dogs behaviour also lands them on the list... some dogs dont give any warnings when they are going to bite, they just turn around and bite. This lands them on the restricted breeds list, they arent banned just restricted in their freedom and must be kept under control.

Sorry but that's just balls.

Top Dog

Gotta agree with Thalia.

Lets take the Rottweiler as just one example. Bred to herd cattle - thats not aggressive. Past history of aggression? Nope. Only the tabloid rubbish making them out to be devil dogs on the very rare occasions there is an incident involving one. Behaviour? Lets see, naturally calm and aloof, known for being big clowns. No warnings when they're going to bite? Wrong! They'll grumble as a first warning. Bark as second. And if both of these are ignored then a bite is a last resort.

Afraid I can't see anything in your post that I can agree with lostinnappies. Sorry.

arybvtcw0eolkf

~Thalia~ wrote: »

Sorry but that's just balls.

+1.

In that case a lot of the terrier which were breed for hunting/fighting badgers, rats, foxes etc would have made the list.

The Sweeper

If I was to draw up my own personal dangerous breeds list, I think it would have the rough collie, followed by the old english sheepdog, followed by any variety of setter, topped off by the dalmation. That's the sum total of anything that's ever gone bald-headed for me in my life at any rate.

Oh - and anything with a sniff of jack russell in it, although apparently they're only dangerous if you're a small, furry animal.

Morganna

Yes i agree the rough collie can be very dangerous and i have seen evidence of this .There was a dog in the uk who was a show dog and a stud dog and he was dangerous.He quite often turned on his owners and his progency also had the same temperaments even his grandchildren .I also say dalmations ,terriers Old english sheep dogs and chihuhuas

Beth

Agree with Thalia also.

There's WORKING dogs on that list. Thats what they were bred for.

bigpinkelephant

Jack Russells are the worst- have also been snapped at by 2 Cocker Spaniels.

arybvtcw0eolkf

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

Jack Russells are the worst- have also been snapped at by 2 Cocker Spaniels.

I've been bit by a JRT too, that and a Yorkie.

Morganna

A yorkie a westie and a chihuhua got me.Give me a big dog any day

The Sweeper

The whole idea that working dogs - German Shepherds, Rottweilers etc - are vicious and aggressive simply because of their breed is ridiculous.

Ask anyone trying to train a drug-sniffer dog, or a police dog, or a bomb-sniffer dog or any other working dog. The dropout rate is immense. Just because a dog is a German Shepherd, that doesn't mean it's suitable for what it was allegedly bred for. I don't know the precise statistic, but I'm nearly sure the programme I was watching (on d'telleh) the other day about training police dogs said less than 1 in 100 candidates is suitable.

The dog needs to show willingness to defend itself, so it needs to be openly aggressive when threatened. Then it needs to have a massive play drive because it needs to be actively interested in reward for its obedience - and that reward can't be food or you'll end up with donut jokes about the police dogs too.

Anything that's going to be trained as a working dog needs to be a pocket rocket from puppyhood - that's why the trainers get a lot of their potential trainees from rescue centres, because if someone's surrendered a dog because it's bouncing off the walls and they're afraid it'll eat their kids, that's the dog the armed forces/police/drug unit wants - because they know how to handle the animal, and it has all the traits they need.

All dogs are different. If the banned dog list was to truly reflect the amount of damage a breed could do if it were to turn on a child, then all large dogs should be banned and all medium and small dogs should be muzzled.

Beth

You're giving out a whole load of wrong info there.

Have you ever looked properly into Schutzhund??
Those drives are developed if they're not great once they are there, as well as the behavioural protection being trained into them. They have protection instincts because of what they were bred for - herding and protecting the herd, but the protection that is used in police work is worked on very hard for a long time. Some dogs dont make the grade because their prey (not play!) drive isnt very strong and cannot be encouraged any further. Others dont make the grade because they are not up to the standard of obedience required to make it past the BH qualification.

A dog being agressive like you have said in your post, is like a bomb ready to go off and wont be used. Police dogs in the K9 units and any dog that is Sch trained, will not be "openly aggressive if threatened" - its done on command. All of those dogs are 100% under control at any stage of their protection, including their bite!!
There is a huge level of obedience required, and they have to pass that before they can be protection trained. A Schutzhund trained dog that looks to its handler or owner will in NO WAY be aggressive unless it is commanded to be. The dogs are not allowed to make those decisions, the handlers do. Those dogs are tested rigourously before being trained. Tested in obedience (BH) and they have their temperaments tested before being properly protection trained to do a differnet job.

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

Ask anyone trying to train a drug-sniffer dog, or a police dog, or a bomb-sniffer dog or any other working dog. The dropout rate is immense. Just because a dog is a German Shepherd, that doesn't mean it's suitable for what it was allegedly bred for

GSD's were bred to herd!! And for their protection of the herd. Not to sniff drugs or bombs. Their roles have changed in the times between yes, but that doesnt rule out their instincts. They can be trained for other things yes, but working dogs were bred to work because of the instincts they had making them better at the job.

And yes, there is a huge difference between working lines and showing lines but they are still classed as working dogs!! Some of them might have different jobs now, just like the GSD but it doesnt mean they are bred for just one job of sniffing, or just protection. they still retain their instincts and so are still classed as their original working breed. If you qualified as a mechanic but changed careers and decided to train as an accountant, would it make you any less of a mechanic. No, not for the most part.

[edit] Ok so that might not make sense and it might not have come out the way I intended, but hugely inaccurate information sets me off. Sorry.

getz

over 30 years ago i used to show a staffy and i was very successful.i used to meet a lot of other dog breeders in the shows . from what they told me the dog breeds with the bite problems are as follows/english bull terrier/old english sheep dog/ and the alsatian the reason for this was that the show dogs of those breeds had been bred for looks and not for temperament /

Morganna

German shepherds are working dogs .Wether show line or working line.A showline Gsd should be able to work.And many do combine both show and working.When i was a child a long time ago all our gsds worked and where shown.The Gsd was a dual purpose dog he would herd and guard the flock and protect the family and farm .

peasant

Beth wrote: »

. Police dogs in the K9 units and any dog that is Sch trained, will not be "openly aggressive if threatened" - its done on command. All of those dogs are 100% under control at any stage of their protection, including their bite!!

Or so the Schutzhund people would like you to believe.

Never mind their recent breed history, ever since dogs started to live near and with humans they have been bred for a high agression threshold. Quite simply any dog that proved too agressive to handle was ...killed. Dogs defending propery or livestock is one thing, dogs getting agressive towards humans quite another. Even the very independent and highly defensive wolf-killing flock guardians were bred to be non-human agressive ...after all the guard dog is no good to you if it doesn't let you or yours on the property or near your flock. Towards unkown people, these dogs will stand their ground. They will warn, they will defend, they may growl, bark or snap ...but they won't just run out and attack.

What has been done to the poor GSD is quite another story. Rather than being higly indepedent like proper guard dogs, the GSD was bred for high trainability. These dogs have such a will to please that they'd do anything for you. And that even means bite other people on command.
Because of their long evolution, they wouldn't normally attack people, but because of their breeding, you can command them to do so.
Do you see where that leads to? A dog that by instinct doesn't want to attack people is trained to do so on command? Yes ..it leads to inner conflict and confusion. 99% of the time they're supposed to be friendly, quiet and biddable and 1% they're supposed to attack. Very, very few Schutzhund trained dogs are stable enough to handle these conflicting demands.
Luckily, most of these poor confused dogs just fail at the "attack" side of things and never make the grade ...but unfortunately others then fail to make the distinction between friend and foe. A very high percentage of bite incidents in Germany (traditional GSD country) involve Schutzhund trained dogs that bite totally out of context, just because someone raises their arm or makes another movement that is typical in Schutzhund training.


but leaving that aside for a minute ...


I think it is detrimental to the discussion at large to do what most dog owners are doing ...and that is point. Point to any other breed but the one they happen to own.

Fact is, all dogs are capable of biting, given the wrong circumstances and triggers. All dogs of all breeds and sizes have the potential to be dangerous. But at the end of the day, it is always the owner/handler that makes them so.

There should be restricted owners legislation, not restricted dogs.

cowzerp

getz wrote: »

from what they told me the dog breeds with the bite problems are as follows/english bull terrier/old english sheep dog/ and the alsatian the reason for this was that the show dogs of those breeds had been bred for looks and not for temperament /

I,ve never heard of an english bull terrier biting someone-there so placid its unreal, they might have been referring to biting other dogs, unsocialised that may be true., sheep dogs yeah, gsd defensivley yes and i dont see the pronlem with that.

Beth

peasant wrote: »

Or so the Schutzhund people would like you to believe.

No, my own eyes would have me believe.

peasant wrote: »

Very, very few Schutzhund trained dogs are stable enough to handle these conflicting demands.

If they're not able for it, they are not allowed to train for the protection part of SchH!!
SchH trained dogs are very thorougly assessed!

They may be able for the obedience part, and may be able for the tracking part, but not all dogs can train for the protection part.

Someone might try it "at home", but that doesnt mean the dog is SchH trained!! Its owner trained, and sometimes the general public get confused with that.

peasant wrote: »

A very high percentage of bite incidents in Germany (traditional GSD country) involve Schutzhund trained dogs that bite totally out of context, just because someone raises their arm or makes another movement that is typical in Schutzhund training.

Link?

Someone raising their arm like a helper does, does not cause a SchH trained dog to attack. They obey their handler's commands. The dogs do not make the desicions, the handler does!! Only when they have the obedience qualification can they go on to train in SchH. The obedience needed is competiton standard, so the handlers know the dog will obey.

peasant wrote: »

There should be restricted owners legislation, not restricted dogs.

Completely agree with you there.

peasant

Beth wrote: »

Someone raising their arm like a helper does, does not cause a SchH trained dog to attack. They obey their handler's commands. The dogs do not make the desicions, the handler does!! Only when they have the obedience qualification can they go on to train in SchH. The obedience needed is competiton standard, so the handlers know the dog will obey.

You do realise that plain obedience and attack training are two completely different things as far as the dog is concerned?

"Sit", "stay", "here", "down" ...all those are natural dog behaviour that the dog has learned to connect with the command and to perform when asked to do so. Routine, repetition and reward see to that.

Attacking a human on the other hand is NOT natural dog behaviour. The dog literally has to be taught to attack a human. This is done by getting the dog interested in the sleeve (the protective sleeve the training "victim" wears) for weeks on end with lots of play and reward. Only then is the dog ready to go for the sleeve when it is on a human arm, but after that has been done over and over again a dog will attack an arm that is not wearing a sleeve.
Some dogs never make that hurdle, but those that do have definetly lost their natural bite inhibition.
Anybody that has ever trained dogs will know that even the best trained dogs get mixed up sometimes and perform the wrong trick when they are excited.
Quite harmless or even funny when the dog rolls over instead of sitting, not so harmless and not at all funny when in a stressful situation the dog gets confused and decides to bite instead of lying down.
Add to that the human factor: On the training ground it is easy to follow the schedule, give one clear command after the other and watch the dog perform like clockwork ...throw the team in a stressful situation in traffic or in a crowd, add a pinch of nervousness and panic and all control goes out the window and the dog just does whatever it thinks is best.


Assuming that you can control your dog 100% at all times in any situation is delusional. Basing a training program on that assumption is irresponsible. Making attacks on humans part of that training is downright dangerous.

...and the dog gets the blame and the "dangerous" label

Beth

peasant wrote: »

You do realise that plain obedience and attack training are two completely different things as far as the dog is concerned?

Thats why they are rigourosly trained for it ALL

"Sit", "stay", "here", "down" ...all those are natural dog behaviour that the dog has learned to connect with the command and to perform when asked to do so. Routine, repetition and reward see to that.

Routine repetition and reward see to it in SchH training also, but to a higher degree. It doesnt take a couple of months to get a BH qualification (needed before a dog ever trains for SchH I, II, and III), it takes a long time. Same for tracking, same for protection.

Have you actually looked into the sport? Yes, it is a SPORT. A highly competitive sport that results in the dog being able to do a particular job to get its fun reward. Or do you prefer to go by what you've heard from others?
I'm curious now, as this is a discussion board and we're having quite the discussion

Still waiting on the link for the bite stats from German SchH trained dogs that bite because of a particular movement......

Control doesnt go out the window when there are distractions. They are trained to deal with those.

Its nothing like you said in your post. Why do you think the muzzle law doesnt apply to those dogs that work in k9 units, harbour, search and rescue etc? Because they are highly trained dogs.


The dog gets the "dangerous" label due to irresponsible owners. That includes the owners of dogs that have been asked to leave the SchH training grounds because their dog isnt suitable, but take it upon themselves to train a dog for "protection" - the wrong way and with inexperience, leading a dog to be out of control for a lot of the time. As well as including the dogs that are not under control at all times owned by the general public.

Dyr

"The dog literally has to be taught to attack a human" so wild/feral dogs would never attack humans? We're veering off topic here but, what sources are these claims based on, They seem far too absolute for me to believe.

Mr. Presentable

Beth wrote: »

The dog gets the "dangerous" label due to irresponsible owners.

A long way from the OP now, but this above contains the nub of the problem. Take a tour of Finglas or similar socially depressed area and you will find a particular element of the locals has a propensity for owning bull terrier type dogs. Wonder why? It's perceived as being "hard"

Honey-ec

nipplenuts wrote: »

Take a tour of Finglas or similar socially depressed area and you will find a particular element of the locals has a propensity for owning bull terrier type dogs. Wonder why? It's perceived as being "hard"

Absolutely, but that's the problem with these restricted breeds list. By officially deeming a breed "dangerous" you only increase the cachet some idiots see in owning one.

peasant

Beth wrote: »

Have you actually looked into the sport? Yes, it is a SPORT. A highly competitive sport that results in the dog being able to do a particular job to get its fun reward. Or do you prefer to go by what you've heard from others?
I'm curious now, as this is a discussion board and we're having quite the discussion

First off ...I grew up next to a "Hundeplatz" ..I've seen more Schutzhund "training" and all its goings on than you ever will ...just to get that out of the way


But now we come to the crux of the matter ...since when is it a SPORT to teach an animal to attack people?
But that's exactly what the SchuHu crowd have made it. A "sport" with lots of shiny cups, medals and certificates ...and to top it all up you HAVE to participate if you ever want to breed or show your dog.

The main problem with the SPORT though once again is the human factor. People don't just want to participate, they want to win. Dogs are pushed beyond their limits/capabilities with regularity. Totally unsuitable dogs are introduced to this training, as well as totally unsuitable handlers. Training methods are unsavoury in some cases to say the least.

Why do you think the muzzle law doesnt apply to those dogs that work in k9 units, harbour, search and rescue etc? Because they are highly trained dogs.

The muzzle law doesn't apply to these dogs for two reasons

- they are supposed to bite
- the are owned by "the law" so they are exempt


Apart from that, they really are highly trained and specialised dogs with a job and highly dedicated and trained handler ...and not family dogs, "trained" on some field by over-ambitious, under-informed owners under the guidance from someone who once read a book published by the "Schaeferhundverein"

I am of the firm opinion that "Schutzhund" training is of absolutely no benefit whatsoever to your common garden variety family dog (regardless of breed)
It is uneccessary at best and dangerous at worst to teach a family dog how to bite.
Training methods used are highly questionable and most Schutzhund trained dogs that I have met personally were the worse for having received that training.

Whatever having a trained "Schutzhund" may do for the ego and penis size (real or strap-on) of the owner ...it does nothing at all for the dog and I REALLY believe that family dogs and society at large are far better off without this "sport".

This opinion has been formed over years of watching;
poor dogs being tormented into doing something they didn't want to do in the first place,
poor dogs becoming nervous wrecks as soon as they were confronted with something that hadn't been trained before
and poor dogs becoming so confused that the became agressive

and will not be altered by a quick discussion over the internet with a SchuHu deciple.

Beth

nipplenuts wrote: »

A long way from the OP now, but this above contains the nub of the problem. Take a tour of Finglas or similar socially depressed area and you will find a particular element of the locals has a propensity for owning bull terrier type dogs. Wonder why? It's perceived as being "hard"

Where has the "hard" image come from?
Irresponsible owners not keeping their dogs under control, leading to the media sensationalising a breed, leading to more irresponsible owners, leading to more reports.

Control the owners by enforcing the current laws - have ALL breeds need to be kept under control rather than just targetting the responsible owners with restricted breeds.


Peasant,
Fair enough, you draw your opinions on experience and see the sport in a different way to me. thats all I wanted to know.

As for the rest, again you are entitled to your opinion. It doesnt make you right, and mine doesnt make me right - thats why they are called opinions.

Totally unsuitable dogs are introduced to this training, as well as totally unsuitable handlers. Training methods are unsavoury in some cases to say the least.

Then they wont go far in the training if they are not suitable for it. Unsavoury? What do you call unsavoury? The use of a prong collar thats taught how to be used properly? There's no place for it in a family pet's training, but in competitive obedience, used correctly - yes they are used to administer a correction when there is blatant disregard of a command - when they are trained to know what the command means, not from the beginning of the training.

The muzzle law doesn't apply to these dogs for two reasons

- they are supposed to bite
- the are owned by "the law" so they are exempt

They are not trained to bite while on patrol.
As for owned by the law - ok, accepted, search and rescue dogs arent owned by the law and they aren't required to wear a muzzle...

Trained guard dogs are required to wear a muzzle but it doesnt state what training the guard dog must go through be be a guard dog. A lot of guard dogs are treated cruelly to make them viscious. I would be more against that than a SchH trained dog.

and to top it all up you HAVE to participate if you ever want to breed or show your dog.

In Germany, to register the pups and breed - yes. Here... NO.

Training methods used are highly questionable and most Schutzhund trained dogs that I have met personally were the worse for having received that training.

If they were assessed properly then they wouldnt have either a: been trained for it, or b: been accepted to train.

As for your last line, I wouldnt consider myself so. I corrected incorrect information. It has now led to a discussion.

peasant

Beth wrote: »

Unsavoury? What do you call unsavoury? The use of a prong collar thats taught how to be used properly? There's no place for it in a family pet's training, but in competitive obedience, used correctly - yes they are used to administer a correction when there is blatant disregard of a command - when they are trained to know what the command means, not from the beginning of the training.

Now that would be the prime example ...what German SchuHu circles would call "Starkzwang" ...there is no direct translation for this word/method, but loosely translated it means " to subdue with strong force".

It involves prong collars, yanking at the lead (and the neck of the dog), stepping on the lead to force the dog into "down", hitting its back to force it into "sit" up to electric shock training collars and beatings.

There is no "proper" way of using a prong collar or any other way of corporal punishment / torture on a dog ...no matter what the Schutzhund people say.

It is a) cruel and b) counter productive to training

a) doesn't really need to be discussed further, it's self- explanatory

to b)
In order to properly train a dog, you are looking for its willing cooperation. Heeding your instructions should mean a positve experience for the dog, not avoidance of pain. That's the theoretical/moral level.

But there is a practical side to this as well. Anyone who knows anything about dog behaviour will tell you that they are highly skilled social animals. They have developed a multitude of ways to practise conflict avoidance and conflict resolution as is important for a group/pack animal. If all conflicts between dogs were settled by confrontation and agression, dogs would have seized to exist a long time ago as they would all have killed each other.
The leader of a dog pack does not rule by force/agression but because of authority and experience. Authority does NOT mean to be physically stronger / forcing your will down other's throat, it means leadership. Making the right decisions, avoiding harm, benefiting the pack. The leader of the pack is usually a quiet, calm dog that commands respect instead of demanding it.
Violent behaviour, inflicting injury, is detrimental to the pack (injured dogs can't hunt) ..that's why dogs have developed so many ritualised conflict avoiding behaviours (read up on calming signals). A brutal despot of a dog will never be a leader, instead it will be separated from the pack.

If you, as the human leader of the pack, use violence (and a prong collar IS violence) to force your will onto a dog, you loose its respect. A timid dog will just collapse, suffer and endure ...a strong willed one will sooner or later either ignore you or challenge you..or worse, seek an outlet for it's pent up agression elswhere

Again ...not something you want to happen with a dog that has been trained how to attack.

Your argument that the dogs only attack when told to do so by their handler is thus null and void ...as these dogs will have minimal respect for a handler that resorts to violence to control them.

Not only is training a dog to attack as such highly questionable, doing so with violent methods turns these dogs into uncontrollable weapons ...defeating the point of the training in the first place.


This argumentation is sound and cynologically correct ...but unfortionally the protagonists of Schutzhund training are still stuck in the middle ages in regards of their understanding of dogs (and sometimes humans as well) and continue to spin the fable of having total control over their dogs.

You will NEVER achive total control ...the best you can hope for is co-operation

lostinnappies

Just so you guys understand i was answering the OPs question of how the list was COMPILED not that i agree with it. I have met the softest rotties ever who would sooner lick you to death, so please dont jump down my throat. This is just my understanding of why they are on the list from haven spoken to vets about it.

Morganna

,Any dog worth its salt will protect its owner

peasant

Bambi wrote: »

"The dog literally has to be taught to attack a human" so wild/feral dogs would never attack humans? We're veering off topic here but, what sources are these claims based on, They seem far too absolute for me to believe.

You're of course correct not to believe that a dog wouldn't know how to attack a human or that it would never do so. There will always be circumstances when just that can happen.

Generally speaking though, over millenia of co-existence, the dog has evolved to live with and among humans, to integrate with them and to learn how to read (and manipulate!:D) them. The old saying "you don't bite the hand that feeds you" rings very true for dogs, because if they bit they wouldn't be fed or even destroyed.

A perfectly healthy, well adjusted dog will always have a friendly disposition towards humans (that's why we love them so much). ..it's in their (genetic) interest as an individual and as a species.
Only bad experiences or bad training (and in rare cases self defence) will turn them into man-agressive monsters.

The Sweeper

Beth wrote: »

Where has the "hard" image come from?
Irresponsible owners not keeping their dogs under control, leading to the media sensationalising a breed, leading to more irresponsible owners, leading to more reports.

It's worth noting that the tabloid sensationalism around "Devil Dogs" has less to do with irresponsible owners and more to do with a slow news season.

I've been trying to find a reference to this on the internet, but it's difficult to search through 20 years of hype to find what I want. Suffice to say I got this historical tidbit from a man who had produced the BBC Nine O Clock News for a decade.

In the late 1980s, there was a slow news season one summer in the UK. Really slow. Nothing happened. Other than a heat wave, the press were searching for something to put on their front page.

Then a rottweiler dog mauled a child. (It was possibly two rottweilers - as I said, I'm finding it hard to find the original story among the hype.)

The press leapt upon the story, because it was newsworthy. Then, purely because there was nothing else going on, the tabloid media started a campaign against 'dangerous breeds'. They needed something to fill their pages, and the story took off like a rocket. It offered opportunities for huge headlines, hype, impassioned debate, great photo opportunities - they filled the rest of the slow news summer with the Rottweiler story (and apparently 'rottweiler' became a term for any news story that grew legs and ran).

The News of the World ressurected that circus with its Devil Dogs Campaign in 2006. That wasn't an original action - they knew a tried and tested remedy to a slow news month and they implemented it.

Basically the media didn't sensationalise a breed because a recognisable proportion of owners weren't controlling their dogs. They sensationalised a breed because there was nothing else going on at the time.

Top Dog

Morganna wrote: »

It is egotistical macho people who do schutzhund.

Sorry, but this is one of the most riduculous statements I've read yet, so I felt compelled to reply. Do you even know what Schutzhund is about? And that protection training is only one aspect of it? Dogs can undergo Schutzhund training, get their certificates and recognition, and never have to do the protection training which is the only area I'm aware of that biting is involved.

Do a little homework and you'll see its not all about the biting, aggression and attacking. Your above statement is no better than the misinformed sensationalism we see daily in the newspapers with references to devil dogs.:rolleyes:

Peasant - you make for a very interesting debate, but you have still not shown any links to statistics for the bite incidents in Germany which you've referred to

peasant

Top Dog wrote: »

Peasant - you make for a very interesting debate, but you have still not shown any links to statistics for the bite incidents in Germany which you've referred to

That's because there is none, not a quotable one anyway.

Bite statistics in Germany are a confusing affair as every state has a different way of compiling them. Fact is that the GSD leads the way. Fact also is that with regard to the sheer numbers of GSD in Germany the amount of bite incidents is relatively low but proportionally still slightly higher than it ought to be. Another fact is that almost all GSD in Germany have been subject to some degree of Schutzhund or VPG training, at least the obedience end of it.

now ...IF what the SchuHu people claim was right ...that a Schuhu trained dog only ever bites on command ...then there should be virtually no bite incidents involving GSD's. But there aren't ...the numbers are higher than other breeds (with the exception of pitbull types who get their rank by virtue of attracting the wrong owner and often mistaken identity)

Now make of that what you want.

EDIT
for anyone able to read German, page 7 of this document is where it's at:
http://www.hundegesetze.de/down/NRWauswert_hundebericht_2006.pdf

Top Dog

Fair enough on there not being quotable statistics. I'm just interested as we'd considered doing Sch with our Rottie. Still may, but seriously doubt we'd do the protection training as I simply don't see the need for it.

You sound pretty well versed on the subject so maybe you could answer a question for me. I've heard tell that dogs who do Sch training, don't know if this includes the protection aspect, can have a much shorter life expectancy when compared with a regular family dog of the same breed. Do you know if there's any truth to this?

peasant

Top Dog wrote: »

I've heard tell that dogs who do Sch training, don't know if this includes the protection aspect, can have a much shorter life expectancy when compared with a regular family dog of the same breed. Do you know if there's any truth to this?

I doubt that really.

Provided the training is done properly, the dog is not over excerted or injured, I couldn't really imagine why it should have any effect on life expectancy.

What happens in circles of really ambitious SchuHu people is different though.

It is not uncommon to keep a "cracker dog" in virtual solitary confinement in a run behind the house and only take it out for a few hours every week for very extensive and demanding training, where the poor dog explodes from having no excercise at all to jumping hurdles, doing sprints, etc at full tilt.

That of course isn't good for its muscles, joints or psyche and those dogs usually don't get very old. But to those kind of owners that doesn't really matter, as long as they've won a few medals with that dog.

But this kind of behaviour really is the exception rather than the rule.

peasant

To bring this thread back on topic:

In my personal opinion, in this day and age, having a list of restricted breeds is a moral and ethic embarrassment to the society that issued it.

The mindset behind this is the same as in medieval times where cats where put to trial as witches.
The animals, per definition, are innocent. They are not capable of rational decisions, they are not responsible and they can not be held responsible.

Furthermore this whole thing also smacks of underlying racism. To assume that one breed of dog is fundamentally different than another breed not only shows zero knowledge of dogs in general but also gives an insight into the breedist/racist mindset behind.

Sure, there are dangerous dogs out there, and something needs to be done about this. But these dogs are not dangerous because they belong to breed x, but because they were bred wrong, trained wrong and kept wrong.

The responsibility for a dog being dangerous always lies with those that made it so ...people. These are the ones that need to be stopped/restricted, not the dogs.

whitser

but the news papers say they are evil, are you saying they're lying? i've seen pictures in the news them dogs look like eeny meanies.

getz

in the uk more people keep dogs than in ireland ,dogs as pets is quite new to a lot of people in the republic ,yet the goverment was quick to ban every dog it dident like the look of--then realised it made a cockup and changed the list---in the uk the restriced list is small

lostinnappies

what do you think of this info then
http://dogobedienceadvice.com/which_dog_breeds_are_most_aggressive.php

Discostuy

Did i read right recently that Holland abolished their dangerous dogs act due it being a waste of time as it had no effect??

One other thing i often thought about was that if there was a legal loophole or legal act about an animals right to defend itself if it was attacked.

With all these dangerous dogs being muzzled, and say you were caught without a muzzle, could you not argue by muzzling the dog you were taking away its right to defend itself in attack?? Just a boredom thought...

getz

the list of restricted dogs in the uk as follows--- pit bull terrier-japanese tosa--doco argentinos-fila brasileiros - only four dogs by name as in the uk far more people have dogs -and a lot more people are bit--but it is understood that most of the problems are the owners not the dogs---notice only the pit bull is on the irish list ?

arybvtcw0eolkf

Discostuy wrote: »

Just a boredom thought...

Oh and a good thought too.

I've posted this before.

My lad is attacked almost everytime we're out for a walk, his only form of protection is me and my size 11's.

Honey-ec

Mairt wrote: »

My lad is attacked almost everytime we're out for a walk, his only form of protection is me and my size 11's.

That, and your prodigious chop-socky skills;)