Life as a "Dangerous Dog" owner

ruben

We have 2 German Sheps and they are the best dogs ever.

Sheps are so loyal and loving and their family is their world. They are not bouncy, love everyone, pat me, type dogs like Labs for instance but they are a world away from the killer beast who wants to tear your throat out that they are portrayed as.
We are lucky in that where we live we have a very big garden and lots of quite roadways and open bog, so walking is not a problem and they get an off lead run every evening.

We don't tend to bring them out in public much as
1. we don't need to.
2. when we do people act as though we have 2 chained lions on leads.
3. We would never muzzle them and in order to be compliant with the law, we should do.

yellowcurl

There are always going to be dogs in every breed who are going to be bad tempered, whether it be through abuse or just a cranky dog. But i find it so sad when people make assumptions before even observing properly. They don't need to go up and try to pet the dog, just watch it and they would see that they're fine.

We had rhodesian ridgebacks for years and our neighbours were always going on about how "dangerous" they were etc. Just because they originated from africa... One of the dogs got attacked by another neighbours red setter, yes the cute dog from the bus eireann ads, and he just lay there and took it. Had to bring him to the vet to get stitched up etc, had scars all over after it

Then funnily enough, the neighbours that started the "dangerous" rumours went and got themselves a rottweiler who they have treated so badly that it has killed some cats in our area. The poor dog wouldn't know affection if it came up and sat on him. i find this so sad.

campervan

Do you get nosy old battleaxes telling you "that dog is dangerous" or people stopping their children from petting your dog because "he's dangerous"?
What breed do you have?

we dont have a restricted breed of dog, my OH has a huge Lab, but I just had to laugh with the comment made about the nosy old battleaxe,that was exactly what happened the other day, the dog accidentally got out of the car at a petrol station, before we got a chance to put him back in he had wagged up to this old lady who took one look at him and started her rant about dangerous dogs and how he would bite someone. we were speechless. this guy would wag you to death. I know some people arent doggy people but come on...:rolleyes:
anyway, my brother also got a staff bull terrier when he was a pup and they have had 2 kids since. they thought they would have to get rid of him when the kids came along as they werent sure how he would react. well he is still there pottering around, he was the most gentle thing with them, very protective.

RICARDO1982

Mairt wrote: »

Thats funny, we're on opposite sides of the same coin, when I'm out with my guys I hate to see JRT's off the lead because almost without exception I know the JRT will attack.

They always remind me of a journeyman boxer who'll fight anything and always looking to punch above their weight.

I think thats a bit of an extreme opinion on JRT I have had 4 JRT dogs over my lifetime (not all related) and they were all quite friendley.
Its how they are treated. My lad is well socialised from a pup and hasnt got a vicious bone in his body.
Mairt i think you give excellent advice usally but saying Jrt will attack is
Like saying GSD and Rottie are dangerous/vicious etc

iguana

I'm not sure how I could cope if I owned a restricted breed dog in Ireland. Having to break the law in order to exercise my dog would always have me on edge. In fact the level of restrictions on all types of dog is such nonsense. My dogs aren't on the restricted list, but if I was moving back to Ireland I'd feel very limited about where I could live.

I live in London and can walk my dogs off lead whenever I want in about 95% of the parks. I can take them on buses, tubes or trains. And there are lots of pubs/cafes/restaurants about that I can bring my dogs to.

I'd also have to agree with most people on here that the dog I've had the most problems with as far as aggression is concerned is JRTs*. Not all of them, but I think a lot of JRT owners think that as their dog is so little it's aggressive behaviour is funny or cute. I have springers and they tear around like mad things on a walk. Any JRTs who see them running around seem to like to chase them while barking and pretend my dog is running in fear? Luckily for them my dogs just tune them out. But their owners always think it's adorable and unfortunately for me I'm not as good at tuning annoyances out as my dogs are.:(

*And yorkies to a slightly lesser extent.

Discostuy

iguana wrote: »

I'm not sure how I could cope if I owned a restricted breed dog in Ireland. Having to break the law in order to exercise my dog would always have me on edge. In fact the level of restrictions on all types of dog is such nonsense. My dogs aren't on the restricted list, but if I was moving back to Ireland I'd feel very limited about where I could live.

I live in London and can walk my dogs off lead whenever I want in about 95% of the parks. I can take them on buses, tubes or trains. And there are lots of pubs/cafes/restaurants about that I can bring my dogs to.

Ireland is brutal for owning any dog. I was in Berlin a few weeks ago, and people had dogs everywhere, in shops, bars, cafe's and all public transport. The dogs, obviously being used to this from a young age were all fine. They just sat and walked around quietly with no one making a fuss.

I saw the same thing when i was in America and Oz. No restrictions in parks or public places, it was great.

Over here, people make an ordeal of passing me and my dog on the footpath. Sometimes you can see they are just short of telling you to walk on the road or something.

arybvtcw0eolkf

RICARDO1982 wrote: »

I think thats a bit of an extreme opinion on JRT I have had 4 JRT dogs over my lifetime (not all related) and they were all quite friendley.
Its how they are treated. My lad is well socialised from a pup and hasnt got a vicious bone in his body.
Mairt i think you give excellent advice usally but saying Jrt will attack is
Like saying GSD and Rottie are dangerous/vicious etc

Sorry, but I can only talk from personal experience and I don't mean to say that you personally are a bad owner.

But!.. I've always got the impression from alot of JRT owners that they got the dog because it would be small and unobtrusive in the house so didn't really go beyond caring for their own needs and not those of the dog, ie properly socialising the dogs etc. Would I be totally wrong there?.

RICARDO1982

Mairt wrote: »

Sorry, but I can only talk from personal experience and I don't mean to say that you personally are a bad owner.

But!.. I've always got the impression from alot of JRT owners that they got the dog because it would be small and unobtrusive in the house so didn't really go beyond caring for their own needs and not those of the dog, ie properly socialising the dogs etc. Would I be totally wrong there?.

In fairness i have heard some say that before, but I personally think that if people are looking for a house dog a JRT is not for them. As we all know they were originally bred for hunting fox and ratting so... If these people
want a house dog get a chihuahua or pug!!!! Not a highly intelligent terrier that feels it has a job(and needs exercise and mental stimulation to get the most of life)

RICARDO1982

I also want to say i am comfortable with any breed of dog i feel each dog is an individual and the breed does not totally dictate their behaviour.
A lot of the reason is media (Killer dog attacks etc...)
Movies.....
Parents telling you when your young..(be careful of big dogs)
Lack of education....

Some of my friends have, pitbull, staff, doge de bourdeaux, rottie, and i have never had a problem with them i even think the bigger they are the more likely they are a big gentle giant

Lilly/DNB

RICARDO1982 wrote: »

In fairness i have heard some say that before, but I personally think that if people are looking for a house dog a JRT is not for them. As we all know they were originally bred for hunting fox and ratting so... If these people
want a house dog get a chihuahua or pug!!!! Not a highly intelligent terrier that feels it has a job(and needs exercise and mental stimulation to get the most of life)

i have to agree with you on that. but i have to say i walk my dogs 3 times daily and without fail i will be confronted by a smally attacking my dogs i don't blame the breed of dog but rather the uneducated irresponsible owner who thinks that the control of dogs act only applies to people who own restricted breeds, people thinking its ok to let their dog out first ting in the morning and let it back in at night i don’t know why these people would even want a dog if they are not going to look after it, im not saying all smalleys have more balls than brains and yes i have meet a few sweet little1s but i have also come across some very temperamental smalleys that cause big problems for people out walking and the truth is that the restricted breed will be the dog getting eyeballed even though they are on a lead not causing any trouble, i have being walking down the street getting attacked by a dog and i am told i shouldn't have that dog its dangerous ehhh HELLO its my dog getting attacked not attacking but still ignorance some how always takes over, I believe that responsible ownership for all breeds should be promoted from the smallest to the largest of dogs are capable to attack or kill there should not be a restricted breed list or a DDA this protects the irresponsible owners by putting the blame on a breed of dog rather than on the owner it does nothing at all to combat irresponsible owners as its only responsible owners who abide the law and most importantly there is no proof what’s so ever to say that any breed is dangerous than any other so its really doing more harm than good.

Lilly/DNB

just something i came accross


Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland
Proposed Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill
A proposal to modernise the law on dangerous dogs
The Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991 was introduced at a time where several high-profile dog attacks on humans had caused alarm amongst the public. This legislation was hurriedly produced and poorly drafted, and has failed to make the public any safer from dangerous dogs. The DDA outlaws specific breeds of dog, but takes no account of the behaviour of dog owners. Furthermore, dog attacks are not criminal offences when they occur on private property. The police also report that, for various reasons, the DDA is difficult to enforce, and a huge drain on resources.
With such shortcomings in mind, there is clearly a need for more practical, up-to-date legislation. I propose to introduce a Bill, which aims to give the public greater protection by addressing the shortcomings of the existing legislation, and placing more responsibility on the owner for the dog’s treatment and behaviour. My Bill would include the following key changes:
• The law will operate on a preventative basis. Control Orders will be issued to owners of dogs that are dangerously out of control, to ensure they do not endanger public safety. This would include compulsory microchipping for such dogs, in order to keep track of them, and it would be an offence not to notify authorities if details such as address or owner are changed.
• Make attacks an offence wherever they occur.
The weaknesses of the current legislation, as well as proposed changes, are discussed in depth in this paper. You are invited to read these proposals, and comment on any issues that you feel may be relevant. Responses must be submitted by Monday 14th April 2008, and should be sent to the following address:
Alex Neil MSP
Room M4.19
The Scottish Parliament
Edinburgh
EH99 1SP
Alternatively, please email responses to alex.neil.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
In addition, feel free to pass this consultation document on to any other interested parties that you may be aware of.
1
N.B. To help inform debate on the matters covered by this paper and in the interests of openness, all the responses submitted on this consultation document will be made public. Names will also be made public unless you indicate otherwise. Personal data referring to third parties included in the response will not be accepted without explicit written consent from the third party. If you wish the contents of your response to be treated in confidence and not made public, then please indicate so.
All responses will be included in any summary or statistical analysis, which does not identify individual responses.
Please note that copies of this paper can be made available in Braille, large print or audio cassette on request.
Table of Contents
Background to current dangerous dogs legislation 3
Problems with the existing legislation 5
Issues surrounding breed specific legislation 5
Lack of protection on private property 6
Areas for Consideration – proposed amendments 7
Issues for Consultation 10
2
Background to current legislation
Background – current dangerous dogs legislation
This chapter describes how the law currently stands in the UK, with the weaknesses discussed in the following chapter. There are two pieces of legislation which principally address the issue of dangerous dogs in Scotland.
Dogs Act 1871 (c.56)
This law entitles members of the public to make a complaint to a court that a dog is dangerous and not being kept under proper control. The court can order the owner to keep the dog under control, or can have the dog destroyed. It should be noted that this act is not part of criminal law – it only created civil offences.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (c.65)
During the period 1990/1991, a number of high-profile dog attacks caused alarm amongst the public and the media. These included the tragic death of 11-year-old Kelly Lynch, who was mauled by two Rottweilers in Dunoon. Public anger and concern following this attack led to the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991), which came into force on 12th August of that year.
Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) aimed to ban ownership of four specific types of dog1, namely, “The types known as
• Pit Bull Terrier
• Japanese Tosa
• Filo Brasileiro
• Dogo Argentino”
This is an example of what is known as “breed specific legislation”, which aims to reduce dog attacks by outlawing those breeds believed to be the most dangerous. In this case, the Act refers to “the types known as”, rather than “breeds” – this is because Pit Bull Terrier and Japanese Tosa are not officially recognised breeds in the UK.
Section 1 also bans any other breed designated by order of the Secretary of State as a breed of a type appearing “to be bred for fighting, or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose.” To date, no other types have been added.
After the Act came into force, owners of these dogs were given until 30th November 1991 to apply for exemption. Owners granted an exemption had their dogs placed on a list known as the Index of Exempted Dogs (IED), and had to meet certain requirements (see table 1).
1 In practice, this section has only applied to Pit Bull Terriers, as the others have never been prevalent in the UK.
3Section 3 deals with dog attacks, by any type of dog. Anyone allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place – or a private place where the dog was not permitted to be - was guilty of an offence. If the dog actually injured someone, the person in charge of the dog was guilty of an aggravated offence.
The DDA proved to be controversial when it was introduced, with its opponents claiming that its focus on specific breeds of dogs, and the mandatory destruction orders was unnecessarily harsh.
Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 (c.53)
Several organisations - including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust and the Metropolitan Police - formed the DDA Reform Group to look at how to improve the DDA. Pressure from this group led to the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997. This repealed the mandatory destruction orders from Section 1 of the DDA, giving the court the option of placing the dog on the Index of Exempted Dogs. The IED, which had been closed on 30th November 1991, was re-opened. However – importantly - owners cannot apply to have their dogs placed on the IED. This can only happen at the direction of a court once an offending dog has been brought to its attention.
The law as it stands can therefore be summarised as follows: the four types of dog listed under section 1 of the DDA are still banned in the UK, with ownership only legal if the strict requirements are met. Owners cannot voluntarily bring their dogs forward to be included on the IED – only a court can do this. Being in charge of a dog that is dangerously out of control in a public place (or a private place where it is not permitted to be) is an offence, while allowing it to attack someone is an aggravated offence.
4
Problems with existing legislation
Problems with the existing legislation
Perhaps the strongest evidence that current dog legislation has not made the public any safer is demonstrated by British Medical Journal statistics, which show that the number of people attending hospital following a dog bite has doubled since the Act was introduced. This section examines the reasons why the DDA has not worked.
Section 1
Issues surrounding breed specific legislation
The DDA bans specific types, in the belief that some are intrinsically more dangerous than others. This has been the most controversial aspect of the DDA. The main problem is that it gives the false impression that dogs that are not banned are not potentially dangerous. Indeed, it was the tragic death of 11-year-old Kelly Lynch in 1989 at the hands of two Rottweilers – which were not subsequently banned - that ultimately led to the introduction of the DDA. One academic study carried out in Scotland – immediately before and after the introduction of the DDA - found that the banned dogs were responsible for very few of the attacks seen by A & E departments2. It also found that introducing breed specific legislation did not have any short-term effect on the overall amount of dog bite incidents dealt with in A & E departments.
It is important to mention the role of the owner in a dog’s behaviour. Someone with the best intentions and a genuine love of dogs may not have the skills, experience or physical strength, necessary to train and handle a powerful dog. In addition, a study carried out in the U.S. sought to determine what kind of person would own a ‘vicious’ dog, by comparing hundreds of owners of ‘vicious’ dogs with owners of other dogs.3 ‘Vicious’ dogs included pit-bull type dogs and any dog that had attacked humans or other dogs. This study found that owners of ‘vicious’ dogs were significantly more likely to have a criminal record4 that those who owned non-vicious dogs. This highlights a major flaw with breed specific legislation – it focuses on the dog, and takes no account of the ability of the owner to look after the dog, or how the dog has been trained, if it has been trained at all.
It is clear that a dog’s breed is only one factor which may affect its behaviour. Attempting to define the law purely in relation to breed has failed to protect the public. This view is supported by several leading organisations concerned with the welfare of dogs, including the Kennel Club, Advocates for Animals, the Dogs Trust and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
2 See Klaassen, B. et al (1996) “Does the Dangerous Dogs Act protect against animal attacks: a prospective study of mammalian bites in the Accident and Emergency Department” Injury 27(2) pp. 89-91. The study was carried out in Dundee Royal Infirmary A&E in 1991, and repeated in 1993.
3 Barnes, Jaclyn E. et al (2006) ‘Ownership of High-Risk (“Vicious”) Dogs as a Marker for Deviant Behaviours: Implications for Risk Assessment’ Journal of Interpersonal Violence Vol. 21(12)
4 Categories of crime examined in this study included aggressive crimes, drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, crimes involving children, firearm convictions, and traffic-related offences.
5
Problems with existing legislation
to Animals. The widely accepted view is that the way a dog is trained and treated is far more important in determining its behaviour than its breed is5.
Dangerous Dogs Act - Section 3
Section 3 made it an offence to be responsible for any dog – not just those banned under Section 1 – that was dangerously out of control in a public place, or a private place in which it was not permitted to be. This section is too limited in its scope, for two reasons:
• It fails to offer the same level of protection in private places in which the dog is permitted to be. If the attack occurs in the dog’s own home – as is very often the case - the owner cannot be prosecuted. For example, in 2005, a two-year-old girl required hours of surgery after being attacked by her neighbour’s Japanese Akita in Carmarthenshire, West Wales. As this happened in the neighbour’s home where the dog lived, there was no scope for prosecution under the DDA, and the dog still lives next door to the girl.
• Attacks on other animals are not a criminal offence. The Scottish SPCA recently reported a case in which a swan was attacked by a Rottweiler. The swan had to be put down and her six cygnets were left abandoned. In another incident, a terrier crawled into a badger’s sett and killed the cub. The owners were clearly partly responsible in that they did not keep their dogs under control. However, they faced no criminal charges.
Areas for Consideration – Proposals for Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill
I believe there is a need to increase the focus on individual dogs that are actually dangerous, and on the actions of their owners. I would like to shift the emphasis from ‘breed’ to ‘deed’ – that is, judge how dangerous a dog is by its behaviour. This section discusses the proposed Bill in greater detail. Questions that I would like you to consider are also included in this section and summarised in the final chapter.
Throughout the consultation I have referred to the owner; this should also be taken to be the person who was in charge of the dog at the time of the offence. As is currently the case I propose that, when an offence has been committed, it is whoever was in charge of the dog at the time that would be charged. This is to ensure that people do not escape responsibility on the basis that they did not own the dog when they were clearly in charge of it at the time of the offence.
Keeping all dogs under control – introducing Control Orders
It has been demonstrated in the previous chapter that the dogs banned under section 1 of the DDA contribute only a small amount of the dog bites seen by A&E departments. What is needed is a method of acting against dogs of any breed that endanger public safety.
I therefore propose to make it an offence for anyone in charge of a dog to allow it to be dangerously out of control. This will apply to whoever is in charge of the dog at the time of the offence, whether they are the owner of the dog or not.
Question: For the purpose of the Bill, how would you define a dog as being ‘dangerously out of control’?
It will also be an offence if, under these same circumstances, the dog attacks another animal. At the moment allowing a dog to attack another animal is not covered under criminal law. However, I feel that it is important that people take steps to ensure that a dog under their control does not harm other animals. In addition this will provide protection for working dogs such as guide dogs, police dogs and other assistance dogs.
It would be a defence however if the dog attacked the other animal in self-defence, or if it was defending its owner who was being attacked by the other animal. I would also propose to include a defence for police dogs carrying out their duties.
If a dog which is out of control attacks and/or injures a person, then it will be an aggravated offence.
7
Areas for consideration
Again it would be a defence if the dog was being attacked by the person and it was acting in self-defence, or if it was defending its owner who was being attacked by another person. I would again propose a defence for police dogs carrying out their duties.
I also propose that the offences will apply anywhere. The exception to this would be if the dog were kept in a secure area to which there was no way that the member of the public would ordinarily be able to access, but that the person who was attacked had attempted to enter it. For example, if the dog were kept in a secure garden consisting of a high fence which had no gate, and someone climbed over the fence to gain entry and was attacked, then that would be a defence, as the owner had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the public from accessing the area. It would not be a defence, however, if someone visiting the owner was attacked, such as a postman or a tradesman.
Question: Are there any other defences, besides those listed, which could be considered?
If a person is convicted of any of these offences then the Court will be able to use their discretion and apply any or all of the following control measures:
• That the dog be subject to conditions such as being muzzled and kept on a lead at all times
• That the owner attend a mandatory dog-training course
• That the owner be disqualified from owning a dog for a period as determined by the court
• That the dog be re-homed
• That the owner pay up to £5000 in compensation for personal injury, loss or damage arising from actually caused harm in a minor incident
• In the most serious cases, a fine of up to £5000 and/or up to 6 months imprisonment, or an unlimited fine and/or up to 2 years imprisonment .
• Anyone convicted of an aggravated attack should be disqualified from owning animals.
• That the dog be destroyed (in extreme cases).
Adding a range of control measures is more flexible, and takes into account that every dog represents a varying degree of danger to the public. Importantly, it is only when a dog is actually shown to have an aggressive nature that it becomes subject to any legal restraints.
Question: Do you have any other suggestions to the above list of enforcements that could be issued as a Control Order?
For such Control Orders to work, it would also be necessary to keep track of the dogs. For this reason, I propose that all dogs for which a Control Order has been issued should be microchipped. This would mean that the owner of the dog would irrefutably be the person responsible for ensuring that the requirements of the Control Order would be carried out. This would be irrespective of whether or not they were in charge of the dog at the time of the
8
Areas for consideration
offence. Details of the dog’s owner would be held on a database, as is currently the case with microchipped dogs, and would be accessible to organisations which required it. It would also be an offence not to notify the database’s administrators of a change of address, or if the dog was given to a different owner.
When a person in charge of a dog has been convicted of an offence as outlined above, a control measure could be issued to the owner, even if the owner was not in charge of the dog at the time. This proposal would act pre-emptively, and give courts more flexible powers to use against the owner of any dog considered by the court to be acting dangerously.
These proposals, if adopted, would help address the shortcomings of the existing dog legislation – allowing authorities to act on the owner of any dog which has an aggressive nature before it injures anyone, and therefore giving the public greater protection.
9
Issues for Consultation
Below are the questions I have asked you to consider, together with some general issues on which I would also like your opinion. Please submit responses by Monday 14th April 2008:

1) Are there any other ways to provide greater protection from dangerous dogs?
2) For the purposes of the bill, how would you define a dog as being ‘dangerously out of control’?
3) Are there any other defences, besides those listed on pages 7 and 8, which could be considered?
4) Do you have any other suggestions to the list of enforcements (on page 8) that could be issued as a control order?
5) What are your views on the creation of an offence of allowing your dog to attack another animal?
6) Can you think of any other costs that would arise out of implementing these proposals – either to dog owners or the public purse - which have not been mentioned in this consultation?
7) Are there any equality issues that may arise out of these proposed changes?

~Thalia~

Lilly/DNB wrote: »

i have to agree with you on that. but i have to say i walk my dogs 3 times daily and without fail i will be confronted by a smally attacking my dogs i don't blame the breed of dog but rather the uneducated irresponsible owner who thinks that the control of dogs act only applies to people who own restricted breeds, people thinking its ok to let their dog out first ting in the morning and let it back in at night i don’t know why these people would even want a dog if they are not going to look after it, im not saying all smalleys have more balls than brains and yes i have meet a few sweet little1s but i have also come across some very temperamental smalleys that cause big problems for people out walking and the truth is that the restricted breed will be the dog getting eyeballed even though they are on a lead not causing any trouble, i have being walking down the street getting attacked by a dog and i am told i shouldn't have that dog its dangerous ehhh HELLO its my dog getting attacked not attacking but still ignorance some how always takes over, I believe that responsible ownership for all breeds should be promoted from the smallest to the largest of dogs are capable to attack or kill there should not be a restricted breed list or a DDA this protects the irresponsible owners by putting the blame on a breed of dog rather than on the owner it does nothing at all to combat irresponsible owners as its only responsible owners who abide the law and most importantly there is no proof what’s so ever to say that any breed is dangerous than any other so its really doing more harm than good.

Little Westie went bald headed for my GSD out walking on Sunday last. Talk about punching above his weight the little gobsh*te THankfully he was on a lead so his owner was able to pull him away. My dog was just looking at me with eyes saying 'Jesus, what did I do to deserve that like?'

iguana

~Thalia~ wrote: »

Little Westie went bald headed for my GSD out walking on Sunday last. Talk about punching above his weight the little gobsh*te THankfully he was on a lead so his owner was able to pull him away. My dog was just looking at me with eyes saying 'Jesus, what did I do to deserve that like?'

I often see big dogs being threatened by little dogs and I always think the big dogs look so confused. I remember seeing a yorkie go crazy barking at two GSDs once and the GSDs exchanged a look that seemed to say "What the hell is that? Is it a dog? Why would a dog behave like that? I'm not sure, lets ignore it til it goes away."

LeahBaby

Here's "My dangerous dog"

My GSD!!

arybvtcw0eolkf

~Thalia~ wrote: »

Little Westie went bald headed for my GSD out walking on Sunday last. Talk about punching above his weight the little gobsh*te THankfully he was on a lead so his owner was able to pull him away. My dog was just looking at me with eyes saying 'Jesus, what did I do to deserve that like?'

I was on the beach last Sunday with 'LovelyTom' (member here), my two guys were playing happily with Tom's little border terrier when they were attacked by a Pomp X, 'Richo just walked away looking like 'WTF just happened there' and Ruby rolled over on her back for a play, lol.

No apologises from the lady owner of the PompX, but as I said to Tom - had the roles been reversed I could only imagine what the woman would have said about my lads!.

Killme00

I call it the Napoleon complex.

This applies to people too.

Beth

Its not the greatest being a restricted breeds owner - people cross the road when the rottie is being walked without the other dog, Jump in fear if she barks at a bird, you can see them physically tense up a good few feet away even if we're heading in the opposite directions.

Walk her with the fluffy Papillon and people react so differently. There's no crossing the road, the fear that people showed previously turns to confusion... oh that dangerous dog might not be so dangerous if it can walk with a fluff-ball!

She has to be brought for her walk early in the morning so we're not lambasted by people telling us she should be banned, and screeching hysterically at us - we had enough of it walking at normal daylight hours. The forest is empty at that hour of the morning apart from another restricted breed owner, who walks her GSD and Jack Russell.

If a dog is aggressive towards her, yes she will bark back... she's a dog. But the owners of the other dog will screech and throw a hissyfit that the rottie is attacking/trying to attack their dog.. the one that starts it :rolleyes: She has been confronted by a snarling, barking Jack Russell around the town (different JRT). The JRT has been off lead every single time with no response to voice commands (when the owner bothered! - most times he doesnt) bouncing back and forth, and snarling even with us between them, yet we're the ones given out to because our rottie is attacking the Jack Russell...

At this stage I'm beginning to think I'd rather meet a restricted breed on the road than any other. Any of the restricted breeds I've met have gone through training so the owners could handle them when they're fully grown. The smaller breeds - most I've met around the towns I've lived in havent bothered training them and when asked I got told "sure he's/she's only small, he/she wont do any damage, and I can always pick him/her up". But in saying that I'm coming across more smaller breeds that are being trained now since a training class is being run more regularly and within driving distance.

The latest thing we're using with her is a backpack. When people see her wandering around with it on, they're mad curious so there's a little less fear - but still wont get too close coz she's a :eek: rottie! :eek:

iguana

Beth wrote: »

At this stage I'm beginning to think I'd rather meet a restricted breed on the road than any other. Any of the restricted breeds I've met have gone through training so the owners could handle them when they're fully grown. The smaller breeds - most I've met around the towns I've lived in havent bothered training them and when asked I got told "sure he's/she's only small, he/she wont do any damage, and I can always pick him/her up". But in saying that I'm coming across more smaller breeds that are being trained now since a training class is being run more regularly and within driving distance.

Tbf, I've met a LOT of people with restricted breeds who had no control over them. (It's got quite a bit to do with the area I used to live in.) There was one horrible man who had two rottweilers, male and female (I think he planned to breed them). The female was a lovely dog and enjoyed playing with one of my dogs. The male took this badly and tried to attack my dog for playing with "his" female (my dog was still a pup at the time). After a few months the man got rid of the female, but the male was still incredibly aggressive.

He was usually kept on a lead but not always. I would do my best to walk the other way if I saw him coming, but he didn't give a toss and would walk right up to other dog owners even though his dog attacked. He once had him off the lead, I tried to give him a wide berth but his dog charged at one of mine and attacked him. I was terrified and started screaming and while he did pull his dog away he didn't apologise or check to see if my dog was ok, he just walked away. If he hadn't been able to pull his dog off mine would have been dead.

There was another woman who had a lovely female staffie but who regularly looked after her son's rottweiler who was completely untrained. Again the rottie was possesive of "his" female and attacked any male dog in the vicinity. If they came into the park while I was there I had to leave, unfortunately the woman was nice but incredibly dim. If she saw me in the park she'd come over for a chat, regardless of the fact that the rottie would attack mine. I once had to grab my dogs and pull them into a fenced dog free area of the park while the rottie paced outside, barking and snarling, and I was clinging to the gate to keep it shut.

I met two different owners of bull breed dogs where the dogs charged at mine and the owners screamed at me to put my dogs on a lead as their dog attacks. Ironically the second guy's dogs just wanted to play and weren't even slightly aggressive. Their moron owner just wanted them to be.

I can understand why people who have this experience of big dogs are frightened of them. If a JRT or similar attacks my dogs it doesn't scare me as I know that my dogs aren't in danger. If a small dog attacks a child it's possible for an adult to over-power that dog. When the rotties attacked my dog there was almost nothing I could do as a full grown rottie is a lot stronger than me. I'm wary of big dogs because of this. If I can see a big dog which is well-socialised and either friendly or uninterested, that's fine. But until I can see that I'll be a bit nervous.

Beth

Oh I do realise I've been lucky so far with the restricted breeds I've met being under control. I would guess most of it is because of living in towns and villages where the dog population are mostly workers. I've lived in bad areas of the city/grew up in a bad area in the city, but never met a restricted breed dog apart from a greyhound. I would class that as unusual. I've not come across the "hard man image" and using the dog as an accessory (and I'm far from sheltered )

I know that not ALL are kept under control and not all are trained.

You've had some pretty bad experiences of irresponsible owners

I have been terrified of rotties since I was younger and got chased by one while cutting through a field to a friends house. Lucky for me the chain was shorter than the distance to me. It was childish stupidy and I shouldnt have been there, but it instilled a fear in me until we got our rottie.

andreac

My lovely restricted breed rottie has been nearly attacked twice by a boxer. The owner has no control over him and is always off the lead. I had enough after the 2nd time and i reported him to the dog warden as the dog is dangerous and viscous and a liablity out in public if hes not kept on a lead and muzzled.

Whispered

I thought you might all enjoy this


EDIT: I can't make it work so here's the link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odi0XlI-4_g

arybvtcw0eolkf

helena.ryan wrote: »

I thought you might all enjoy this


EDIT: I can't make it work so here's the link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odi0XlI-4_g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odi0XlI-4_g

RICARDO1982

Thats a nice vid..

its old fashioned and backward to try catagorize cartain breeds into certain behaviors..

I like to think we have moved on and realised that its how we treat the dogs we share our lives with that make them the way they are.

In my opinion anyone who says any different is being narrowminded

RICARDO1982

By the way guys you are all bitchin about westies and pappillon and Jrt etc...
Thats just some of them.. they are not all like that.

you labellin all small dogs like that, is just like people saying all big dogs/restricted dogs are dangerous

ie.. untrue and you know it, as well as i do..

arybvtcw0eolkf

RICARDO1982 wrote: »

ie.. untrue and you know it, as well as i do..

The difference is we're not advocating JRT's etc be put on a restricted breeds list, but owner's should recognise that based solely on people's experience and not what they read in paper, see on the news etc that these dogs are temperamental.

We're not saying they're killers by any means, and thats how certain dogs on the restricted list as viewed by a majority of people, and thats not based on personal experience. But I dare say that if people are honest with you, they'll say that they've see more aggression shown by those smaller breeds than the restricted breeds list.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Now happened five minutes ago.

My daughter brought Ruby (six months old puppy) out for a walk in the estate, she was with her two friends.

Two guards stopped her and asked what kind of dog Ruby was, "Staffie" replied my daughter, the cop asked her what age she was (my daughter).

She told the ban garda she's 13.

Then was informed that she's too young and not strong enough if "that dog decided to go crazy and start attacking people". She was told to bring her home before she attacked.

Now I know the law pertaining to the restricted breeds says people under 16 are not allowed take the dogs for a walk :rolleyes: but the attacking and going crazy bit - give me a break.

RICARDO1982

If you look at all my posts on this topic you will see my opinion is not against any dog big or small. I think this restricted breed list is a load of bull.. and any dog with the right upbringing and balanced life within a pack/Family will turn out to be a well behaved dog around other dogs,kids etc.
Everyone is entitled to there own opinion thank god..

but that is why i disagree on this small dogs are more aggressive idea..


as regards the ban garda i would say she quite possibly came from a no dog home and dosnt have a clue about dogs.

RICARDO1982

By the way mairt if we have a boards dog walk at some stage and i can make it you might get a chance to see my jrt for yourself..

copacetic

iguana wrote: »

Tbf, I've met a LOT of people with restricted breeds who had no control over them. (It's got quite a bit to do with the area I used to live in.) There was one horrible man who had two rottweilers, male and female (I think he planned to breed them). The female was a lovely dog and enjoyed playing with one of my dogs. The male took this badly and tried to attack my dog for playing with "his" female (my dog was still a pup at the time). After a few months the man got rid of the female, but the male was still incredibly aggressive.

He was usually kept on a lead but not always. I would do my best to walk the other way if I saw him coming, but he didn't give a toss and would walk right up to other dog owners even though his dog attacked. He once had him off the lead, I tried to give him a wide berth but his dog charged at one of mine and attacked him. I was terrified and started screaming and while he did pull his dog away he didn't apologise or check to see if my dog was ok, he just walked away. If he hadn't been able to pull his dog off mine would have been dead.

There was another woman who had a lovely female staffie but who regularly looked after her son's rottweiler who was completely untrained. Again the rottie was possesive of "his" female and attacked any male dog in the vicinity. If they came into the park while I was there I had to leave, unfortunately the woman was nice but incredibly dim. If she saw me in the park she'd come over for a chat, regardless of the fact that the rottie would attack mine. I once had to grab my dogs and pull them into a fenced dog free area of the park while the rottie paced outside, barking and snarling, and I was clinging to the gate to keep it shut.

I met two different owners of bull breed dogs where the dogs charged at mine and the owners screamed at me to put my dogs on a lead as their dog attacks. Ironically the second guy's dogs just wanted to play and weren't even slightly aggressive. Their moron owner just wanted them to be.

I can understand why people who have this experience of big dogs are frightened of them. If a JRT or similar attacks my dogs it doesn't scare me as I know that my dogs aren't in danger. If a small dog attacks a child it's possible for an adult to over-power that dog. When the rotties attacked my dog there was almost nothing I could do as a full grown rottie is a lot stronger than me. I'm wary of big dogs because of this. If I can see a big dog which is well-socialised and either friendly or uninterested, that's fine. But until I can see that I'll be a bit nervous.

I agree with most of this, as a non dog owner but someone who likes them I spend a fair bit of time on the bike or out running on a popualr walking route when dogs are being walked. Generally the dogs that will have a nip at your heels are the smaller ones like Jack Russells etc, but the thing is that isn't going to bother me much, they can do little damage (although had a nasty nip once) and can generally be easily brought under control even if you aren't the owner.

When I see someone with a more powerful dog I generally give them a much wider berth, how am I to know if they can keep it under control or if it is well trained? I'm in no hurry to test it out with my body!

I'd be more surprised if these powerful breeds were bothered by a runner, but also I rather have a small nippy dog go for me a 100 times, than one 'proper' dog do it once! Try to remember if people are avoiding you and your dog that they may not think it will attack but are more concerned at the consequences if it does. It's a bit like walking around the back of a horse, you wouldn't do it unless you know the animal yourself.

arybvtcw0eolkf

RICARDO1982 wrote: »

By the way mairt if we have a boards dog walk at some stage and i can make it you might get a chance to see my jrt for yourself..

Oh stop being so defensive about it.

I wasn't directing anything at you. You already agreed with me that most people getting these dogs think their getting something small & cute, won't take up too much space in the house etc.. ie, some people (and I'm not saying you) think certain breeds of dog are low maintenence.

Seriously I think we're just getting our wires crossed.