The Restricted Breeds list?

Shane Fitz

Can anyone forward me any information as to how the 10 listed breeds ended up on this list, as opposed any other breed.
Whilst i dont agree with the list at all :mad:, having owned the most loving, gentle a sociable Akita, i can understand(totally disagree btw) how ignorance and mis-information may have led to the Bull breeds being listed. But the Tosa, are they that common in Ireland that they need to be legislated for. Or the Rhodesians, what misconceptions abound about them that led to their listing?
I feel that if the law regarding "effective control" and muzzling should be applied to all breeds, or to none at all. Singling out specific breeds just distracts from the problem of badly behaved dogs, off lead or roaming, and bad owners. Given, anecdotally, that most injuries from a dog attacks are from the no RB's
I am not advocating the RB's list by the way, totally against it in fact, BUT if there is to be enforcment of the law, should it not focus on the "effective control" of dogs, regardless of breed.

henryporter

There's plenty of laws that don't make any sense in this county including the restricted breeds list. We've had a German Shepherd and a Wheaten Terrier and it was the Terrier that needed to be muzzled and controlled (as do most Terriers!)

wetdogsmell

its a foolish law, staffs and english bulls are restricted (i think) but a presa is not which is more of a guard and more man aggresive,
i'm not picking on presa's i have one, just making a point

Bullseye1

I would love to know how the Rhodesian Ridgeback made the list.

antomagoo

UK has Dangerous Dogs Act we follow suit with RB Legislation, like most things we take our lead from across the water but thats a debate for a different forum

anniehoo

Id love to know too, im not going to the BarkinthePark tomorrow because of it..:(

arybvtcw0eolkf

Ignorance, lazy politicans playing political window dressing, and law makers pandering to the public and media hype, and I'd safely say you could add a dozen more labels to that and still not get it.

boomerang

Here ya go. Basically, it was a knee-jerk reaction to some highly publicised dog attacks in the UK in the early 1990s. Who made the list or not really came down to the Minister's own prejudices, and lobbying from interested parties, such as breed groups. Bulldogs escaped the list because of representations made by a number of bulldog owners and organisations. Boxers also escaped the list.

http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1283038433&view=oho-view&docrank=65&numhitsfound=67&query_rule=%28%28$query1%29%3C%3DDATE%3C%3D%28$query2%29%29%20AND%20%28%28$query4%29%29%3ASPEAKER%20AND%20%28%28$query5%29%29%3Aheading%20AND%20%28%28$query6%29%29%3ACATEGORY%20AND%20%28%28$query3%29%29%3Ahouse%20AND%20%28%28$query7%29%29%3Avolume%20AND%20%28%28$query8%29%29%3Acolnumber%20AND%20%28%28$query%29%29&query1=19910101&query5=control%20of%20dogs&docid=270837&docdb=Debates&dbname=Debates&starthit=50&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1


http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1283038033&view=oho-view&docrank=21&numhitsfound=160&query=restricted%20%20breeds&query_rule=%28%28$query1%29%3C%3DDATE%3C%3D%28$query2%29%29%20AND%20%28%28$query4%29%29%3ASPEAKER%20AND%20%28%28$query5%29%29%3Aheading%20AND%20%28%28$query6%29%29%3ACATEGORY%20AND%20%28%28$query3%29%29%3Ahouse%20AND%20%28%28$query7%29%29%3Avolume%20AND%20%28%28$query8%29%29%3Acolnumber%20AND%20%28%28$query%29%29&docid=277749&docdb=Debates&dbname=Debates&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1

Shane Fitz

Thanks Boomerang, but it still doesn't expalin how certain breeds were listed over others. from reading those 2 links i only see Bull breeds and Rotties mentioned specifically, oh and "fighting dogs" which probably explains the Tosa.. but for the life of me i cant understand how Ridgebacks are listed.. even alowing for the points Makikomi raised.

boomerang

Dail Debate, May 1992 - here is Minister Smith's thinking:

"Mr. Smith: I take the point Deputy McCartan makes with regard to built-up areas, where there is much confinement in terms of freedom or allowing dogs enjoy themselves in the normal way. It is a consideration that should be borne in mind by people in such areas in terms of their acquisition of dogs as pets. Very often such circumstances can be very frustrating not alone for their owners but also for the dogs themselves if there is not a reasonable degree of freedom. It is part of the nature of a dog and something we must endeavour to bear in mind. I would be very reluctant to go beyond a suggestion of that kind. As I understand it, no more than in human life, size and/or ambition do not necessarily relate one to the other. Certainly in my hurling or football days I never had any less fear of a six footer or somebody of 6'5“ than somebody who may have been a foot smaller who could impact in a more severe manner. If one carries that logic through in terms of dogs, a St. Bernard, say, would be regarded as a heavyweight but, in terms of viciousness, not much of a threat whereas a bull terrier would be much lighter but pose a much greater threat in terms of viciousness. As the House will know, in terms of reported accidents to children, facial injuries and so on, again size is not anything like the factor people might think. To that extent the Deputy will appreciate that the question of viciousness and dangerous dogs is a difficult one. It would be extremely difficult if I were obliged, in drawing up regulations, to take account of everything in regard to weight, size and so on. I happen to like dogs very much myself...

At the beginning I said I should like to cultivate a greater interest in smaller dogs more easily managed and maintained particularly in very built-up areas where there would not be the same degree of freedom for the larger type of breed. But to go beyond that in legislative terms I contend would be unacceptable and extremely difficult to determine in any fair or reasonable manner. I hope Deputy McCartan will appreciate that I have indicated on a number of occasions, when it comes to defining the regulations, I intend releasing from the muzzling regulations quite a number of categories but it will still be necessary to keep dogs on leads in public places. Therefore, there will be a flexible, measured way of dealing with this. After reconsideration I think Deputy McCartan will realise that, in legislative terms, to oblige me to take account of all the points he has made would be unnecessarily difficult and indeed would interfere with some of the people for whom he, like me, is endeavouring to cater.


The Bill as it stands will give me a fair degree of freedom in dealing with the various classes of dogs. I will take into account the points which have been made by the Deputy. I ask him not to make my tasks impossible by proposing that the [25] different classes of dogs would be determined on the basis of weight. There is a big difference between a large dog who poses no threat to the public and a small dog who can be very vicious. The Deputy's amendment would make it almost impossible to determine the licence fee in any fair and reasonable way."

boomerang

Shane Fitz wrote: »

but for the life of me i cant understand how Ridgebacks are listed.. even alowing for the points Makikomi raised.

http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1283038718&view=oho-view&docrank=51&numhitsfound=67&query_rule=%28%28$query1%29%3C%3DDATE%3C%3D%28$query2%29%29%20AND%20%28%28$query4%29%29%3ASPEAKER%20AND%20%28%28$query5%29%29%3Aheading%20AND%20%28%28$query6%29%29%3ACATEGORY%20AND%20%28%28$query3%29%29%3Ahouse%20AND%20%28%28$query7%29%29%3Avolume%20AND%20%28%28$query8%29%29%3Acolnumber%20AND%20%28%28$query%29%29&query1=19910101&query5=control%20of%20dogs&docid=285695&docdb=Debates&dbname=Debates&starthit=50&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Stagg): "Representations are received from time to time from a variety of sources in relation to the muzzling requirements of the Control of Dogs (Restriction of Certain Dogs) Regulations, 1991."


"The Control of Dogs (Amendment) Act, 1992 now provides the necessary powers to establish an effective system for the control of dangerous types of dogs. It permits the making of regulations to prohibit specified types of dogs from public places, or specified public places; to require the insurance of specified types of dogs; to prohibit the ownership, keeping, purchase, disposal, abandonment, allowing to stray, breeding or importation of specified types of dangerous dogs; or, ultimately, to require the destruction or sterilisation of such dangerous dogs. The range of measures now available means that we can respond in a balanced way to the levels of threat presented by various types of dogs and the muzzling regulations are being reviewed in the context of these new provisions. There have been consultations with the Irish Veterinary Association, the Irish Kennel Club, the ISPCA and other bodies in relation to the control of dangerous dogs. It is intended that new [946] regulations to deal with this matter will be made shortly."

I presume as the legislation would have been drafted by senior civil servants in the Dept. of the Environment of that time, that it was they that came up with the proposed list, in consultation with the Minister, who made it his personal mission to rid the country of the blight of "dangerous dogs" - in other words, any breed of dog that was being demonised by the media at that time. It appears that certain breeds, such as Bulldogs and Boxers, were considered for inclusion but dropped from the list in response to protest from interest groups.

pokertalk

most of the bulls were originaly bred for fighting and protecting but many of the bull breds have evolved into friendly dogs so i think this list should be changed or updated the staff bull is a perfect example ofthis evolution

Shane Fitz

changed or updated? are you kidding me?
it should be abolished altogether, and replaced with legislation which promotes responsible dog ownership, regardless of breed.
Your example of the Staff is a great example of how ridiculous the list is....

pokertalk

Shane Fitz wrote: »

changed or updated? are you kidding me?
it should be abolished altogether, and replaced with legislation which promotes responsible dog ownership, regardless of breed.
Your example of the Staff is a great example of how ridiculous the list is....

i agree all dogs should be treated the same.but this could mean that all our dogs could end up on a 6 ft leash and muzzle.they would never run the risk of taking a bull off the list .it would only take one incedent and there would be war.alot of dog owners are not even capable of looking after an esb bill let alone let alone a dog so these legislations would fall on deaf ears. if tou want to own any dog you should have to go tru a screening process

ISDW

I don't think theres any point in trying to figure out how the list came to be, there is no real logic behind it, if it was logical there wouldn't be a list, because a dog is a product of its breeding and rearing, not its breed.

Look at it totally logically - it was brought in to deal with potential dog attacks against people. The bull breeds were bred to fight other animals, not people. They were bred to NOT bite their handlers, so in actual fact are logically the least likely to attack people. But, logic doesn't come into it, and you will drive yourself mad trying to figure out the warped logic in this law.

pokertalk

ISDW wrote: »

I don't think theres any point in trying to figure out how the list came to be, there is no real logic behind it, if it was logical there wouldn't be a list, because a dog is a product of its breeding and rearing, not its breed.

Look at it totally logically - it was brought in to deal with potential dog attacks against people. The bull breeds were bred to fight other animals, not people. They were bred to NOT bite their handlers, so in actual fact are logically the least likely to attack people. But, logic doesn't come into it, and you will drive yourself mad trying to figure out the warped logic in this law.

the bull breeds were bred to fight other animals and humans as they were bred to protect there master and property.You say a dog is a product of there breeding and rearing not its breed but THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS ITS BREED IS PUT INTO A CATAGORY OF WHAT IT WAS BRED FOR HENSE ITS BREEDING . but that was in the 1920s and most of the bulls heve evolved into companions rather that what they were bred for decades ago

Discodog

I have recently been involved, at a personal level, with some prominent politicians regarding the DBEB. I am not at all surprised at the RB list. When you meet these people or discuss issues with them, you realise that they have not got a clue. They don't listen to expert opinion. They prefer to listen to those who agree with them.

The ISPCA, LA Wardens, Vets etc will all tow the government line. I am certain that we will copy the UK & have total breed bans. All it needs is for one "incident" involving a restricted breed. Such a ban will meet very little opposition here - a tiny percentage of the population understand dogs. The government can say that they are protecting the public & the public will say well done.

Gormley mentioned in a debate than microchips were placed in dog's ears. Several people contacted the Minister to explain that microchips were place in the neck/between the shoulder blades. A week later he apparently repeated that chips were put in the ears !.

A friend of mine drafted a 20 page report. She knows more about dog welfare & breeding than most & is well known & highly respected. The report was never read.

ISDW

pokertalk wrote: »

the bull breeds were bred to fight other animals and humans as they were bred to protect there master and property.You say a dog is a product of there breeding and rearing not its breed but THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS ITS BREED IS PUT INTO A CATAGORY OF WHAT IT WAS BRED FOR HENSE ITS BREEDING . but that was in the 1920s and most of the bulls heve evolved into companions rather that what they were bred for decades ago

I don't know if you realise, but capital letters on forum such as this is shouting:D

I have never heard before that the bull breeds were bred to fight humans. If you had a dog that was in a 'pit' fighting another dog and you had to pull them apart, the last thing you would want, is a dog that will turn and bite the human hand touching them, hence they were bred not to bite humans.

What I mean, and I'm sorry I wasn't clearer, was that a dog is a product of its breeding as in its parents, their temperament etc, and its rearing, socialisation. If you have a dog with a bad temperament, then you shouldn't breed from it, no matter what breed it is.

DBCyc

pokertalk wrote: »

the bull breeds were bred to fight other animals and humans as they were bred to protect there master and property.You say a dog is a product of there breeding and rearing not its breed but THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS ITS BREED IS PUT INTO A CATAGORY OF WHAT IT WAS BRED FOR HENSE ITS BREEDING . but that was in the 1920s and most of the bulls heve evolved into companions rather that what they were bred for decades ago

This is rubbish. Bull breeds were selectively bred to be totally trustworthy with people. This was essential for the owners of the fighting dogs so that they could be separated in the pit during or after a fight and for other similar reasons.

After dog fighting was outlawed bull breeds became excellent companion and family dogs specifically because they were so people-friendly.

EGAR

Sigh.. Bull Breeds were never bred to fight humans. The ancestors of Mastifs and Wolfhounds etc were (amongst other things) bred and trained as war dogs. Bulldogs were initially the only type of dogs bred and used in baiting "sports", mostly bears, for amusement. Then some bright spark had the idea to cross Terriers with Bulldogs to created a more agile and tenacious type of dog for dogfights and baiting. These were initially called Bull and Terrier and became the ancestors of the Pit Bull Terrier amongst other breeds.

Selectively bred to be human FRIENDLY as the dogmen had to be able to handle the dogs in the pit. Get your facts straight before you come on here and spout such non-sense.

pokertalk

bred to fight humand to protect there master they were not bred originaly fight in pits .. looking in my study unit now only telling you what it sez in the textbook


sighhhhhhhhhh

EGAR

Read again what I wrote: baiting. Pit fights are a relatively *new* development of a sick human mind. Pits way back then were used solely for Terriers versus rats to prevent the rats from escaping.

ALOT of so called utility breeds which are now the "bees knees" of guard dogs as perceived by the public were initially bred for completely different purposes. Rottweilers, GSD's etc were not bred for guarding purposes against humans.

As a matter of fact most Bull Breeds are pretty useless as guard dogs .

pokertalk

tell that to a jack russel;)

pokertalk

btw edgar if u read my eairler post u will see i talked about evolution and that this list should be changed

andreac

pokertalk wrote: »

tell that to a jack russel;)

A jack russell is not a bull breed though?

Your posts are a little confusing tbh and dont make much sense...

Its EGAR, not Edgar;)

pokertalk

i meant as part of the terrier bred.

EGAR

pokertalk wrote: »

btw edgar if u read my eairler post u will see i talked about evolution and that this list should be changed

You can't have your cake and eat it. The List is rubbish and should be abolished as it lacks any base and is a knee-jerk reaction by politicians to pacify the general public which was whipped into a frenzy by the gutter-press. Deed not Breed is the only logical way forward.

Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. What you were talking about was selective breeding which has nothing to do with the matter at hand, i.e. the topic of this discussion.

Other than that I agree with Andreac - it is a wee bit

pokertalk

ye but thats were the topic lead too

pokertalk

thats basically what i said. that these dogs are on the list because of there past but have evolved

DBCyc

pokertalk wrote: »

thats basically what i said. that these dogs are on the list because of there past but have evolved

You said that bull breeds were originally bred to fight humans which is nonsense. As EGAR and other posters have said, the dogs are on the list as a result of knee-jerk political reactions to misinformed media hysteria.

Your assertation that bull breeds were bred to fight humans is yet another example of the misinformation going around regarding these breeds.

lrushe

Discodog wrote: »

I am certain that we will copy the UK & have total breed bans.

This is a scary thought and one we are probably powerless to stop if some politican gets the bit between his teeth

pokertalk

they were bred to protect humans and themselves .so what were they bred to protect humans from then ? other humans??

pokertalk

whatever the case list does not reflect the dogs of today that are on it and should be abolished.

Discodog

It doesn't matter a jot what a breed was originally bred for, donkey's years ago. Many posters here know an awful lot about Bull Breeds. We spend hours on these boards trying to inform & explain that there is no such thing as a dangerous breed, only dangerous people.

These people use the "reputation" of restricted breeds in a stupid attempt to increase their own "reputation". By doing this they scare governments into pointless legislation. If a dog bites a man in Ireland, the dog is punished & not the owner. We might as well go back to the middle ages when animals were called to give evidence - their silence was considered a sign of guilt !.

pokertalk

btw does anyone know of a good bulldog breeder in dublin someone who maybe has bought 1 off them in the past .looking for a bitch

Discodog

pokertalk wrote: »

btw does anyone know of a good bulldog breeder in dublin someone who maybe has bought 1 off them in the past .looking for a bitch

Based on your previous posts are you planning to start Bull Baiting or Human Baiting ?

pokertalk

based on my posts bull dogswere bred to these things along time ago not now

Shane Fitz

Pokertalk, i think we all know why the bull breeds are on the list and whilst you may think you have ALL the facts regarding the history of the bull breeds, you have more than anyone shown me how misinformation is behind the legislation. now please dont think i am having a pop at yo, i'm not!:)
i think, whilst not agreeing with, i know why some of the restricted breeds are listed eg bad press of the bull breeds. but apart from the recent accident in dublin i am unaware of any incidents where Akitas were involved? Were there ever incidents involving Rhodesians that led to their listing, or as i asked earlier are Tosa's that common that they were listed?
I'm fully aware that the media play their part im the bad reps of RB's. The recent thread of a young boy being bitten by a Terrier only highlights this, no media coverage. And whilst i'm not taking issue with the gentleman who posted, his decision to not take it beyond speaking with the owners shows his common decency.
ISDW, EGAR thank you for your input, it was you, owners of RB's that i was hoping to hear from

ISDW

Shane Fitz wrote: »

Pokertalk, i think we all know why the bull breeds are on the list and whilst you may think you have ALL the facts regarding the history of the bull breeds, you have more than anyone shown me how misinformation is behind the legislation. now please dont think i am having a pop at yo, i'm not!:)
i think, whilst not agreeing with, i know why some of the restricted breeds are listed eg bad press of the bull breeds. but apart from the recent accident in dublin i am unaware of any incidents where Akitas were involved? Were there ever incidents involving Rhodesians that led to their listing, or as i asked earlier are Tosa's that common that they were listed?
I'm fully aware that the media play their part im the bad reps of RB's. The recent thread of a young boy being bitten by a Terrier only highlights this, no media coverage. And whilst i'm not taking issue with the gentleman who posted, his decision to not take it beyond speaking with the owners shows his common decency.
ISDW, EGAR thank you for your input, it was you, owners of RB's that i was hoping to hear from

I actually don't own a RB at the moment (although one of mine might be a GSD cross, or she could be a sibe/mal cross, who knows?) but, with the legislation in place, and the knee jerk reaction to anything that happens with dogs, I could well own a RB very soon. They could add dogs to the list any day, so all dog owners and lovers have to stick together on this and not think that just cos you have a nice fluffy dog thats not on any list, it doesn't mean it won't soon be! So we are all potential RB owners.

Phenix

They could add dogs to the list any day, so all dog owners and lovers have to stick together on this and not think that just cos you have a nice fluffy dog thats not on any list, it doesn't mean it won't soon be! So we are all potential RB owners.

i think this is the saddest things i have read today . atm i only have one rescue who is a collie/spaniel cross. i am hoping to take more dogs from rescues and would have no problem taking dogs of any breed. it is so depressing to think that just because you have a certain breed they are not allowed the same freedom of other breeds - through no fault of their own - just human lazyness

Discodog

Stories like this don't help.

"A WOMAN has been charged after her pet Rottweilers attacked and mauled a 10-year-old girl while she was riding her bike. Rhianna Kidd was riding in Dundee, in northeastern Scotland, when the powerful dogs attacked her on Sunday, Sky News reported.
The girl suffered a fractured jaw, bite marks to her face and injuries to her right arm and left leg.

She is in stable condition at Ninewells Hospital, but doctors said she will need an operation to repair some of the damage.
It is understood that the Rottweilers will be put down and a 33-year-old woman has been charged under Section 3 of the 1991 UK's Dangerous Dogs Act for failing to keep the animals under control."


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/woman-charged-after-her-rottweilers-maul-young-girl-on-uk-street/story-e6frf7jx-1225912125724

adser53

The RB list is the bane of my life tbh. It's the most ridiculous, outdated piece of crap and only exists because of media hype surrounding a few high profile dog attack cases in the UK and the good auld Irish government jumped on the band wagon instead of doing their research and talking to animal welfare groups.

This law has no basis on statistics or facts and is frankly just silly IMO. The question does remain about why some breeds are on it. I'm not justifying the inclusion of pits or rotties but they are a favourite target of the media and seeing as how this law was based on media pressure, it's clear why they were included (I don't agree with it at all btw, just saying that the high profile cases I mentioned involved these breeds and the media became fixated on them) But I really don't understand the inclusion of Akitas, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Tosa's etc as they are quite rare. I know in the last 2 years there have been 3 (I think) akita attacks (1 recently in Dublin and 2 up north) and all were non-fatal (thank god) but I've never heard of a Tosa or RR attack

It's very sad and a constant worry to me that there will be a fatal dog attack (by any breed) here in the ROI that'll bring about an outright breed ban based on media pressure and screaming mothers and unfortunately I think it's inevitable because of the amount of bad owners here.

Can anyone explain why the Control of Dogs (Restriction of Certain Dogs) Regulations 1991 listed the Bulldog but the revised Regulations from 1998 had them removed from the list? How did this come about? Will it ever be possible for other breeds to be removed from it?

Bullseye1

Not all the dogs on the restricted list are bull breeds. Rhodesians are sight hounds and are on that stupid list. I bet a politican wouldn't recognise one if they cocked a leg.

ISDW wrote: »

I don't think theres any point in trying to figure out how the list came to be, there is no real logic behind it, if it was logical there wouldn't be a list, because a dog is a product of its breeding and rearing, not its breed.

Look at it totally logically - it was brought in to deal with potential dog attacks against people. The bull breeds were bred to fight other animals, not people. They were bred to NOT bite their handlers, so in actual fact are logically the least likely to attack people. But, logic doesn't come into it, and you will drive yourself mad trying to figure out the warped logic in this law.

adser53

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Not all the dogs on the restricted list are bull breeds. Rhodesians are sight hounds and are on that stupid list. I bet a politican wouldn't recognise one if they cocked a leg.

I think ISDW was just using the bull breed analogy to highlight how illogical the law is in the first place. The breeds on the list have no connection to eachother and were all bred for purposes that are completely different. it just shows that they must've picked these breeds out of a hat!

I still can't figure out why Akitas, RR and Tosas are on it (amongst others) as I'd say there may have been at most 5 of each of them in Ireland when the law came about in 1991. that being said, I was only 7 at the time so my dog breed knowledge was a bit rusty:p

Bullseye1

I could be wrong but weren't Tosa Inus employed as fighters in Japan. Now I know its a kind of Sumo fighting.

Shane Fitz

you're right there Bullseye, the Tosa Inu was a fighting breed... but! is that the only reason they are restricted. Given, as Adser said, and i agree... are there any, or were there any in the country that they had to be included??
The same applies to Akitas and Rhodesian... does anyone have acces to a database, eg IKC registrations, and it might be possible to estimate the populations of the RB's in '91

pokertalk

Shane Fitz wrote: »

Pokertalk, i think we all know why the bull breeds are on the list and whilst you may think you have ALL the facts regarding the history of the bull breeds, you have more than anyone shown me how misinformation is behind the legislation. now please dont think i am having a pop at yo, i'm not!:)
i think, whilst not agreeing with, i know why some of the restricted breeds are listed eg bad press of the bull breeds. but apart from the recent accident in dublin i am unaware of any incidents where Akitas were involved? Were there ever incidents involving Rhodesians that led to their listing, or as i asked earlier are Tosa's that common that they were listed?
I'm fully aware that the media play their part im the bad reps of RB's. The recent thread of a young boy being bitten by a Terrier only highlights this, no media coverage. And whilst i'm not taking issue with the gentleman who posted, his decision to not take it beyond speaking with the owners shows his common decency.
ISDW, EGAR thank you for your input, it was you, owners of RB's that i was hoping to hear from

im only telling you what im studying at the min know your not having a pop at me;).im not pertending i know it all when i dont i was just giving a background on the bull breeds .im not the kinda person that jumps on the media bandwagon i know its mostly knee jerk . i have a mastif myself that i rescued and the only thing thats dangerous about him is his farts and im looking for another one. i know alot of people on this site know there stuff when it comes to dogs but there is still alot that got there k9 degree off wikipedia;)

pokertalk

i know my posts are scaty at times think ido be typing faster than i can type:D and too late in the night. the joys of being a student

lrushe

Shane Fitz wrote: »

The same applies to Akitas and Rhodesian... does anyone have acces to a database, eg IKC registrations, and it might be possible to estimate the populations of the RB's in '91

Don't have an accurate figure but the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club was set up in 1986 so presumably there were enough registered dogs to warrant a Club then????
Registered dogs would also only account for a certain percentage of dogs as there are many PBNR dogs out there for sale so even registration figures would be somewhat inaccurate.

Bullseye1

Shane Fitz wrote: »

you're right there Bullseye, the Tosa Inu was a fighting breed... but! is that the only reason they are restricted. Given, as Adser said, and i agree... are there any, or were there any in the country that they had to be included??
The same applies to Akitas and Rhodesian... does anyone have acces to a database, eg IKC registrations, and it might be possible to estimate the populations of the RB's in '91

I had seen a program on them. I don't think the actually bit each other it was more a question of strength and pushing each other.