eliminating breeds???

linnie · 07-20-2006, 04:37 AM

The last few weeks in Australia dogs have been hitting the headlines for attacks. The latest one was today when a little girl was attacked and killed.

hence I wanted to open a civil discussion and share thoughts about eliminating breeds.

I have always taken the lead "ban the deed not the breed"
But after the past few weeks i am starting to wonder if some of the breeds that are aggressive should slowly be eliminated.
I am in no way saying they should take a dog from a person because of its breed, what I am saying is that perhaps we should reconsider breeding anymore.

It saddens me to even think this way but as we are never going to be able to stop irresponsible people from owning a dog, we need to do something, Any idea's???

DFrost · 07-20-2006, 05:42 AM

Breed Specific Legislation by any other name still smells. In my opinion, the person owning the dog, should be held responsible. It's the same argument with gun manufacturers, you can't hold a gun manufacturer responsible because some moron used the weapon illegally. Don't penalize responsible owners of any breed for the irresponsibility of others.

DFrost

poodlesmom · 07-20-2006, 06:46 AM

I don't think eliminating breeds will eliminate the problem of attacks. I truly feel if certain breeds were eliminated the morons who want to breed or own one of them for all the wrong reasons will only then target a different breed. I honestly don't feel the breeds that are making the headlines because of attacks were originally created to be naturally so aggressive to people that they would attack unprovoked. It is the bad breeding, lack of responsible ownership, inappropriate training or lack of training, that have exacerbated the problem to what it is today with the targeted breeds.

mulroony · 07-20-2006, 06:46 AM

I have to agree w/ DFrost. I cannot see a decrease in the number of dog bites by any legislation like this. Maybe if you made dog ownership more difficult, with incredibly strict laws and regulations, but then again they have tried to do that w/ guns and all it does it keep guns out of the hands of people that should be allowed to have them.

(...why are guns the easiest comparison for all dog debates??)

Spiritus · 07-20-2006, 07:59 AM

I agree with everyone here about not banning breeds. If we got rid of the typical "tough-man" breeds, people would only turn to other breeds. All dogs bite. All dogs have the potential of seriously hurting or even killing people. But then, so do horses, and cars, and guns, and cigarettes, and alcohol, but none of these are banned.

Pretty much ANYTHING in the wrong hands can be used for wrong reasons...

Ritz459 · 07-20-2006, 08:43 AM

If we stopped breeding the dogs that have the great potential to be deadly in some hands, they'd just take another one or create another one. I think there should be stricter regulations to people who own the breed (not muzzling and crap like that, but you have to have a licsense to get a gun, why not a Pit Bull?).

And you also have to think of this: if we got rid of all of the "dangerous" dogs, how would that affect us? What about the people who rely on protection dogs as "bodyguards"? What about the police dogs? Those are breeds that are "dangerous". How many times has someone been saved from being murdered or mugged or something like that by a guarding type breed?

Ritz459 · 07-20-2006, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulroony

(...why are guns the easiest comparison for all dog debates??)

Because both are of great controversy right now, both are good and "evil", both are weapons in irresponsible hands, and both can kill.

But guns don't wait for you to come home, lick away your tears, make you laugh when you're feeling down, and they don't intertain you with their silly antics either.

richnrissa · 07-20-2006, 08:50 AM

Even if one were to support the stopping of breeding of certain breeds, it wouldnt stop. we all know too well the level of irresponsible individual owners and BYB's out there.
I agree w/others, dog ownership should carry more responsibility. and I think that the owners should be held responsible: financially, criminally and otherwise, for the actions of their animals.
We need to move away from the idea that there are 'certain' breeds that are 'dangerous'...like in other threads ppl have talked about homeowners insurace, homeowner associations, dog park restrictions, where certain breeds are 'singled out' as being the 'only' threat.
If we move towards responsible dog ownership, ownership that bears real consequence for irresponsible actions, then one would never have to say the dog was 'born' dangerous.
That, unfortunately, I dont believe will come in my lifetime.

TribalRats · 07-20-2006, 09:04 AM

I have to agree with the majority here so far.
BSL will not stop the unethical. It will only stop those who respect the law.
I still stand by it is the irresponsible breeders and irresponsible owners who are destroying these breeds.

***Carrie*** · 07-20-2006, 10:49 AM

I agree too. Just like D Frost said, don't blame the gun. Blame the user or in the case of dogs, the owner. I am so against breed banning. Now if you want to talk owner banning, I'm all ears.

And besides, whose opinion of which breeds are dangerous should we use? Does anyone seriously trust the government enough to let them decide which breeds are dangerous? Not me! They're dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to dogs and a whole lot of other things they've gotten their noses into.

TribalRats · 07-20-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrie

Now if you want to talk owner banning, I'm all ears.

Me too.

***Cassiepeia*** · 07-20-2006, 04:51 PM

I agree with everyone. It isn't the dogs that are the problem, it's purely the owners (and irresponsible breeders) that are.
The very fact that even since we've had certain breeds banned in this country, the dog bites have increased each year by about 10% should prove that banning and getting rid of certain breeds does nothing to solve the problem.

The only way we can solve the problem is to promote responsible ownership. The only sensible thing the head of the RSPCA (Mr. Hugh Wirth -aka Hugely Worthless-) has ever said was that people should have to go through some sort of training or a course...the licensing should be done for the people not the dogs...something along those lines anyway.
I totally agree. We have to solve the problem at it's root...the stupid owners who have no clue (and in a lot of cases, should never be allowed to own a dog).

Plus didn't that little girl wander into someone elses backyard...or was that another case? I keep wondering where the parents are when these things happen.

For those outside Australia...there is talk now (not by the government...yet) of banning or restricting hunting breeds (AND they keep throwing around the term 'working breed' as well...so it has me worried for a huge range of dogs).

BSL is wrong and never solves anything. Take away one breed of dog and another replaces it.

Cass.

***Carrie*** · 07-20-2006, 05:06 PM

Quote:

For those outside Australia...there is talk now (not by the government...yet) of banning or restricting hunting breeds (AND they keep throwing around the term 'working breed' as well...so it has me worried for a huge range of dogs).

How scary is that!?!? Give 'em an inch and they take a mile. Not suprised. Someone better be ready with some sort of petition or whatever you do down under and nip it in the.....well, the bud has already sprung...nip it before the noxious weed spreads. The next thing they'll say is you can't have any dogs. Or only certain people can have dogs. Who knows? The sky is the limit when you give away your rights to someone else. I sure hope that doesn't come to pass with all those other breeds. Sickening.

***Cassiepeia*** · 07-20-2006, 05:34 PM

I know what you mean Carrie and it's terrifying. There are, fortunately, a lot of people down here ready for a fight, if there is one, hopefully the government has a few dog lovers in its midst that will see how ridiculous this is. But we can't rely on that hope. So...yes we won't let it happen if we can help it...we'll at least not go down without a fight.

And if worst comes to worst...there's room for me and Jesse over there in the US, right?

Cass.

Dogsareme · 07-20-2006, 05:40 PM

I think we are hearing more and more of dog attacks because dogs are no longer used for original purposes (most dogs, not all). And because dogs are having to adjust to life as city dogs and most owners don't exercise or socialize enough. Plus all the rule changes, must be on-leash, no running free, Kept fenced in, etc. I agree many of these rules are for the dogs own safely, but dogs don't understand them, it's just not DOG.
Because of all this, alot of dogs don't understand things, are scared of things, undersocialized, and nervous.
These attacks are normal dog behavior (for the most part considering circumstances) and it's all most likely in the name of what they think is self defence, or protecting territory.
Sad really.
I don't think eliminating breeds would help that matter. We would still have the same careless people owning dogs.

07-20-2006, 04:37 AM	#1 (permalink)
linnie tibbie girl Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 3,051 Rep Power: 168	eliminating breeds??? The last few weeks in Australia dogs have been hitting the headlines for attacks. The latest one was today when a little girl was attacked and killed. hence I wanted to open a civil discussion and share thoughts about eliminating breeds. I have always taken the lead "ban the deed not the breed" But after the past few weeks i am starting to wonder if some of the breeds that are aggressive should slowly be eliminated. I am in no way saying they should take a dog from a person because of its breed, what I am saying is that perhaps we should reconsider breeding anymore. It saddens me to even think this way but as we are never going to be able to stop irresponsible people from owning a dog, we need to do something, Any idea's???
	__________________ Caution...Dogs can leave footprints on your heart

07-20-2006, 05:42 AM	#2 (permalink)
DFrost Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: TN Posts: 277 Rep Power: 95	Breed Specific Legislation by any other name still smells. In my opinion, the person owning the dog, should be held responsible. It's the same argument with gun manufacturers, you can't hold a gun manufacturer responsible because some moron used the weapon illegally. Don't penalize responsible owners of any breed for the irresponsibility of others. DFrost
	__________________ Beyone Fatigue lies compensatory hypertropy DFrost

07-20-2006, 06:46 AM	#3 (permalink)
poodlesmom Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: upstate NY Posts: 1,389 Rep Power: 107	I don't think eliminating breeds will eliminate the problem of attacks. I truly feel if certain breeds were eliminated the morons who want to breed or own one of them for all the wrong reasons will only then target a different breed. I honestly don't feel the breeds that are making the headlines because of attacks were originally created to be naturally so aggressive to people that they would attack unprovoked. It is the bad breeding, lack of responsible ownership, inappropriate training or lack of training, that have exacerbated the problem to what it is today with the targeted breeds.
	__________________ Denise a/k/a Poodlesmom

07-20-2006, 06:46 AM	#4 (permalink)
mulroony Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Champaign, IL Posts: 2,100 Rep Power: 115	I have to agree w/ DFrost. I cannot see a decrease in the number of dog bites by any legislation like this. Maybe if you made dog ownership more difficult, with incredibly strict laws and regulations, but then again they have tried to do that w/ guns and all it does it keep guns out of the hands of people that should be allowed to have them. (...why are guns the easiest comparison for all dog debates??)
	__________________ Shelby (CGC), Jackson, Max, & Mackenzie (CGC) - My pups :) Pit Bull "Problem" Movie (Graphic)

07-20-2006, 07:59 AM	#5 (permalink)
Spiritus Trust the Force... Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Saskatchewan, Canada Posts: 513 Rep Power: 76	I agree with everyone here about not banning breeds. If we got rid of the typical "tough-man" breeds, people would only turn to other breeds. All dogs bite. All dogs have the potential of seriously hurting or even killing people. But then, so do horses, and cars, and guns, and cigarettes, and alcohol, but none of these are banned. Pretty much ANYTHING in the wrong hands can be used for wrong reasons...
	__________________ Spiritus Belgian Shepherds U-CD Can. CH. Shay CD CGN HIC UKC/Can. CH. Trouble, Lexi, Jesse CGN, and youngsters Constantine and Deja .... and coming soon, our Valentine Litter * R.I.P. BOSS CH. Wren, and much loved puppy Tally *

07-20-2006, 08:43 AM	#6 (permalink)
Ritz459 Fuzzbutt attack Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Indiana Posts: 5,259 Blog Entries: 3 Rep Power: 215	If we stopped breeding the dogs that have the great potential to be deadly in some hands, they'd just take another one or create another one. I think there should be stricter regulations to people who own the breed (not muzzling and crap like that, but you have to have a licsense to get a gun, why not a Pit Bull?). And you also have to think of this: if we got rid of all of the "dangerous" dogs, how would that affect us? What about the people who rely on protection dogs as "bodyguards"? What about the police dogs? Those are breeds that are "dangerous". How many times has someone been saved from being murdered or mugged or something like that by a guarding type breed?
	__________________ ~Blackie, Rose, Chloe (dogs), Pheobe (cat), Casey, Dameon (ferrets), Joey ('Tiel), Dot, Louie (cavies), Pickachu (hamster), Rush (R.I.P. 15yrs), Lucy (R.I.P. 4yrs)~

07-20-2006, 08:50 AM	#8 (permalink)
richnrissa Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: WA Posts: 862 Rep Power: 80	Even if one were to support the stopping of breeding of certain breeds, it wouldnt stop. we all know too well the level of irresponsible individual owners and BYB's out there. I agree w/others, dog ownership should carry more responsibility. and I think that the owners should be held responsible: financially, criminally and otherwise, for the actions of their animals. We need to move away from the idea that there are 'certain' breeds that are 'dangerous'...like in other threads ppl have talked about homeowners insurace, homeowner associations, dog park restrictions, where certain breeds are 'singled out' as being the 'only' threat. If we move towards responsible dog ownership, ownership that bears real consequence for irresponsible actions, then one would never have to say the dog was 'born' dangerous. That, unfortunately, I dont believe will come in my lifetime.
	__________________ If you cannot be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning- Catherine Aird

07-20-2006, 09:04 AM	#9 (permalink)
TribalRats Take Responsibility Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Central Valley, CA Posts: 3,327 Rep Power: 141	I have to agree with the majority here so far. BSL will not stop the unethical. It will only stop those who respect the law. I still stand by it is the irresponsible breeders and irresponsible owners who are destroying these breeds.
	__________________ Get more out of Global Paw. Check out these great features. Global Paw Book Club -- Art Classes -- Woof Review As a member of Global paw staff my opinions are not necessarily those of the website or the owner.

07-20-2006, 10:49 AM	#10 (permalink)
*Carrie* Super Moderator Super Moderator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: north panhandle of Idaho Posts: 7,398 Rep Power: 278	I agree too. Just like D Frost said, don't blame the gun. Blame the user or in the case of dogs, the owner. I am so against breed banning. Now if you want to talk owner banning, I'm all ears. And besides, whose opinion of which breeds are dangerous should we use? Does anyone seriously trust the government enough to let them decide which breeds are dangerous? Not me! They're dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to dogs and a whole lot of other things they've gotten their noses into.
	__________________ Get more out of Global Paw. Check out these great features. Global Paw Book Club -- Art Classes -- Woof Review As a member of Global paw staff my opinions are not necessarily those of the website or the owner.

07-20-2006, 04:51 PM	#12 (permalink)
*Cassiepeia* Chihuahua Mum Super Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: NSW, Australia Posts: 8,247 Blog Entries: 9 Rep Power: 279	I agree with everyone. It isn't the dogs that are the problem, it's purely the owners (and irresponsible breeders) that are. The very fact that even since we've had certain breeds banned in this country, the dog bites have increased each year by about 10% should prove that banning and getting rid of certain breeds does nothing to solve the problem. The only way we can solve the problem is to promote responsible ownership. The only sensible thing the head of the RSPCA (Mr. Hugh Wirth -aka Hugely Worthless-) has ever said was that people should have to go through some sort of training or a course...the licensing should be done for the people not the dogs...something along those lines anyway. I totally agree. We have to solve the problem at it's root...the stupid owners who have no clue (and in a lot of cases, should never be allowed to own a dog). Plus didn't that little girl wander into someone elses backyard...or was that another case? I keep wondering where the parents are when these things happen. For those outside Australia...there is talk now (not by the government...yet) of banning or restricting hunting breeds (AND they keep throwing around the term 'working breed' as well...so it has me worried for a huge range of dogs). BSL is wrong and never solves anything. Take away one breed of dog and another replaces it. Cass.
	__________________ Say NO! to animals in pet shops. Rescue a friend instead: Petfinder Get more out of Global Paw. Check out these great features. Book Club ~ Blogs ~ Art Classes ~ Woof Review As a member of Global paw staff my opinions are not necessarily those of the website or the owner.

07-20-2006, 05:34 PM	#14 (permalink)
*Cassiepeia* Chihuahua Mum Super Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: NSW, Australia Posts: 8,247 Blog Entries: 9 Rep Power: 279	I know what you mean Carrie and it's terrifying. There are, fortunately, a lot of people down here ready for a fight, if there is one, hopefully the government has a few dog lovers in its midst that will see how ridiculous this is. But we can't rely on that hope. So...yes we won't let it happen if we can help it...we'll at least not go down without a fight. And if worst comes to worst...there's room for me and Jesse over there in the US, right? Cass.
	__________________ Say NO! to animals in pet shops. Rescue a friend instead: Petfinder Get more out of Global Paw. Check out these great features. Book Club ~ Blogs ~ Art Classes ~ Woof Review As a member of Global paw staff my opinions are not necessarily those of the website or the owner.

07-20-2006, 05:40 PM	#15 (permalink)
Dogsareme Kaede, Mudd & Kyrel Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: BC, Canada Posts: 584 Rep Power: 68	I think we are hearing more and more of dog attacks because dogs are no longer used for original purposes (most dogs, not all). And because dogs are having to adjust to life as city dogs and most owners don't exercise or socialize enough. Plus all the rule changes, must be on-leash, no running free, Kept fenced in, etc. I agree many of these rules are for the dogs own safely, but dogs don't understand them, it's just not DOG. Because of all this, alot of dogs don't understand things, are scared of things, undersocialized, and nervous. These attacks are normal dog behavior (for the most part considering circumstances) and it's all most likely in the name of what they think is self defence, or protecting territory. Sad really. I don't think eliminating breeds would help that matter. We would still have the same careless people owning dogs.
	__________________ Happiness is owning a dog.