Out of control dogs/dog attacks

[owlo]

I had a Boerboel, he was lovely. We did pet therapy with seniors and he was a champ at it.

A lot of these dogs are a higher level of difficulty to keep and manage than others so it's easy for well meaning people to get into situations they can no longer handle and then the dog's behaviour gets worse. Even mine had a moment when I first got him where he challenged me. It was intimidating but I knew I couldn't back down.

The other side of the coin is people who actively want a dangerous dog to look tough.

Yep, you need to get a dog that is right for you. And breeders need to take responsibility and sell dogs that are right for their owners. A boerboel is a lovely velcro dog, but needs the correct socialisation and training to be safe. There's a story relevant to the quote below, where a loner girl had an RBT for years, they got on great. Then she got a boyfriend, the dog started to completely dominate him, and they had to take him for rehoming. Settled in with his new owners just fine, and with the correct training has been a lovely dog.

There's definitely value to people who've gone through childhood abuse/DV getting a large dog that makes them feel protected. A boerboel or several other breeds can be brilliant for this. Training should be mandatory though and it should have regular check ups.

Yeah my guess would be that there is a large amount of pitbull in their genes. Mine was more staffy than XL in his genetics, so wasn't the same size or anything, it was mainly in his face that you could recognise he wasn't full staffy. It was only when searching photos of staffy x breeds when I saw a staffy x xl that was a spitting image of him, so that's why I thought that could be his breed. He died earlier this year though.

What's a CO and RBT? And why don't you think CCs will be an issue? Are they a less aggressive breed? Sorry I don't know a lot about the breed hence all the Qs. My only concern is they fall into the wrong hands and are trained to be aggressive, which would obviously be a big problem and would see them all banned due to a few bad owners.

The Fila ban always intrigued me. I can't imagine there was ever an influx in the UK that caused the ban. Like you said the UK government is usually reactive, so interesting they banned that breed. I saw comments from the MP involved in writing the dangerous dog legislation and they said they got it wrong and it needs redoing.

Yeah you just got lucky I suppose (actually, mainly you were a good owner with a properly socialised dog) that nobody reported him. As far as I'm aware dog laws are such, that once a dog like that is seized its likely to be destroyed.

A CO is a Caucasian Ovcharka/Caucasian Shepherd dog. (I've only come across 3 or 4 myself) Extremely large and powerful (often 80kg for fit males), and loyal/defensive/protective by nature and generally aggressive to strangers. You get good ones that are fluffballs, but in general they have spent their early lives as guardians. They are really independent, so if your dog decides something is a threat to your family (its flock) it can be problematic given it's bred to attack packs of wolves or defend from bears. You also can't generally train them in a group even as puppies, as they will be aggressive to other dogs. They are kryptonite to pitbull owners, and generally if an aggressive pitbull or similar comes close in the park or something, it can be a problem.

A lot of these issues aren't CO specific, but apply to all mastiffs. It's just amplified in the CO as it's so dominant and powerful. A badly bred, socialised, and trained english mastiff, boerboel, fila, SAS, CC, Rottie, or any other number of mastiffs will display similar behaviours and problems to lesser extents.

RBT is a Russian Black Terrier (bred from rotties and giant schnauzers - Only met one myself and it was likely a 'problem dog' as it was in the shelter, but they are a bit like russian blue cats in that they attach themselves to a single owner. In a way they are a perfect apartment dog for a single owner as they don't look for trouble and are velcro, like the boerboel, have quite low energy, and don't chase cats/rabbits/etc - but primarily are working dogs and quite difficult to read. Also if poorly trained can skip steps and just bite in a stress situation. On the other hand they are generally only dealing with threats moving towards them; if something runs away they won't chase. Really interesting breed. (I want one)

People should not get dogs that are bred to bite people if they don't want to put the work in to train them.

CC's are probably on the lower end of mastiff aggression. There's just more of them. It's like the GSD (gerrman shepherd) and Rotties - they bite more than almost any other dog I think, but it's purely statistics due to the fact that there are so many more GSD's/Rotties than any other similar dog.

I've actually never met a Fila and can only rely on the internet for my information, but I think they were lumped in with 'fighting dogs' - It could also be that the British bought them in the early Americas and used them to hunt down slaves so they were perceived as problematic. In actuality as far as my internet research tells me, they are just another mastiff.

To my mind no breed except the pitbull should be banned. There's probably a good case for the pitbull ban though. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/d...atistics, pit,the second-most dangerous breed. A few notes about that list, you have fatalities from dogs like the Malamute and Lab (which indicate terrible luck or training. The malamute is literally a fluffball.) as well as likely 'pack' type fatalities from dogs like Huskies - these will take their lead from the first aggressive dog and join in. (Another risk factor to the RBT by the way; if you pair one with an 'aggressive' dog, they will often follow the leader). Here's 2022. A clear pit bull issue. https://www.animals24-7.org/2023/01...lls are believed to,de Bordeaux, and by husky. - Bear in mind just how much less popular they are in pure numbers than GSD's or Rotties.

On the Bully XL phenomenon in the UK.... I'm not sure, we probably need a lot more data to make any sort of logical conclusion. But my hypothesis would be rogue breeders, having brought poor/aggressive lines over from the USA, they've managed to breed a line of XL that is far more dangerous and probably far more pit bull. You could likely destroy them under current pitbull legislation. Indeed, the problem could well simply be pitbull with a loophole whereby they've been bred with a F2/F3 bully, to make a high percentage pitbull bully. (Though unlikely to be exactly that due to size, which seems to be how they've evaded the pitbull ban.)

It's another example of our stupid laws. If I breed a serval or ALC with a domestic cat, the babies need DWA's (and I need a DWA to breed them). It's only once they reach F2 (2nd generation, whereby I bred the baby of the ServalxCat with another cat) that they are considered domestic. If I breed a serval with a cat, then the baby with another serval etc to make a high percentage Savannah, I need a DWA. There's no logical reason why I should be able to breed a Pitbull with a staffy, and the baby with another pitbull, and then a staffy (picking the biggest daddy dogs possible to increase baby size), etc etc whilst keeping as high percentage pitbull as possible, that I should not need a DWA. In fact, I'd posit that every dog breeder should require a DWA. As another example, with our current laws I could quite easily breed an 80%~ dogo argentino which isn't white and would therefore easily evade the ban, but was a nasty dog. If I then marketed the dog to gangsters and other unsuitable and undesirable owners, we'd have a similar situation to the bully XL. (And I'd be richer and have done nothing wrong!)

If I was designing dog laws now: 1. All breeders need DWA and registration 2. All owners must be insured 3. Pitbulls and high percentage derivatives banned 4. All dogs must do a minimum of 12 weeks classes before 12 months old. 5. Yearly dog MOT's - I think this would solve 90% of issues.

 

[pocco]

Yep, you need to get a dog that is right for you. And breeders need to take responsibility and sell dogs that are right for their owners. A boerboel is a lovely velcro dog, but needs the correct socialisation and training to be safe. There's a story relevant to the quote below, where a loner girl had an RBT for years, they got on great. Then she got a boyfriend, the dog started to completely dominate him, and they had to take him for rehoming. Settled in with his new owners just fine, and with the correct training has been a lovely dog.

There's definitely value to people who've gone through childhood abuse/DV getting a large dog that makes them feel protected. A boerboel or several other breeds can be brilliant for this. Training should be mandatory though and it should have regular check ups.



Yeah you just got lucky I suppose (actually, mainly you were a good owner with a properly socialised dog) that nobody reported him. As far as I'm aware dog laws are such, that once a dog like that is seized its likely to be destroyed.

A CO is a Caucasian Ovcharka/Caucasian Shepherd dog. (I've only come across 3 or 4 myself) Extremely large and powerful (often 80kg for fit males), and loyal/defensive/protective by nature and generally aggressive to strangers. You get good ones that are fluffballs, but in general they have spent their early lives as guardians. They are really independent, so if your dog decides something is a threat to your family (its flock) it can be problematic given it's bred to attack packs of wolves or defend from bears. You also can't generally train them in a group even as puppies, as they will be aggressive to other dogs. They are kryptonite to pitbull owners, and generally if an aggressive pitbull or similar comes close in the park or something, it can be a problem.

A lot of these issues aren't CO specific, but apply to all mastiffs. It's just amplified in the CO as it's so dominant and powerful. A badly bred, socialised, and trained english mastiff, boerboel, fila, SAS, CC, Rottie, or any other number of mastiffs will display similar behaviours and problems to lesser extents.

RBT is a Russian Black Terrier (bred from rotties and giant schnauzers - Only met one myself and it was likely a 'problem dog' as it was in the shelter, but they are a bit like russian blue cats in that they attach themselves to a single owner. In a way they are a perfect apartment dog for a single owner as they don't look for trouble and are velcro, like the boerboel, have quite low energy, and don't chase cats/rabbits/etc - but primarily are working dogs and quite difficult to read. Also if poorly trained can skip steps and just bite in a stress situation. On the other hand they are generally only dealing with threats moving towards them; if something runs away they won't chase. Really interesting breed. (I want one)

People should not get dogs that are bred to bite people if they don't want to put the work in to train them.

CC's are probably on the lower end of mastiff aggression. There's just more of them. It's like the GSD (gerrman shepherd) and Rotties - they bite more than almost any other dog I think, but it's purely statistics due to the fact that there are so many more GSD's/Rotties than any other similar dog.

I've actually never met a Fila and can only rely on the internet for my information, but I think they were lumped in with 'fighting dogs' - It could also be that the British bought them in the early Americas and used them to hunt down slaves so they were perceived as problematic. In actuality as far as my internet research tells me, they are just another mastiff.

To my mind no breed except the pitbull should be banned. There's probably a good case for the pitbull ban though. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/dog-attack-statistics-by-breed/#:~:text=According to these statistics, pit,the second-most dangerous breed. A few notes about that list, you have fatalities from dogs like the Malamute and Lab (which indicate terrible luck or training. The malamute is literally a fluffball.) as well as likely 'pack' type fatalities from dogs like Huskies - these will take their lead from the first aggressive dog and join in. (Another risk factor to the RBT by the way; if you pair one with an 'aggressive' dog, they will often follow the leader). Here's 2022. A clear pit bull issue. https://www.animals24-7.org/2023/01/06/dogs-killed-62-americans-pit-bulls-killed-41/#:~:text=Pit bulls are believed to,de Bordeaux, and by husky. - Bear in mind just how much less popular they are in pure numbers than GSD's or Rotties.

On the Bully XL phenomenon in the UK.... I'm not sure, we probably need a lot more data to make any sort of logical conclusion. But my hypothesis would be rogue breeders, having brought poor/aggressive lines over from the USA, they've managed to breed a line of XL that is far more dangerous and probably far more pit bull. You could likely destroy them under current pitbull legislation. Indeed, the problem could well simply be pitbull with a loophole whereby they've been bred with a F2/F3 bully, to make a high percentage pitbull bully. (Though unlikely to be exactly that due to size, which seems to be how they've evaded the pitbull ban.)

It's another example of our stupid laws. If I breed a serval or ALC with a domestic cat, the babies need DWA's (and I need a DWA to breed them). It's only once they reach F2 (2nd generation, whereby I bred the baby of the ServalxCat with another cat) that they are considered domestic. If I breed a serval with a cat, then the baby with another serval etc to make a high percentage Savannah, I need a DWA. There's no logical reason why I should be able to breed a Pitbull with a staffy, and the baby with another pitbull, and then a staffy (picking the biggest daddy dogs possible to increase baby size), etc etc whilst keeping as high percentage pitbull as possible, that I should not need a DWA. In fact, I'd posit that every dog breeder should require a DWA. As another example, with our current laws I could quite easily breed an 80%~ dogo argentino which isn't white and would therefore easily evade the ban, but was a nasty dog. If I then marketed the dog to gangsters and other unsuitable and undesirable owners, we'd have a similar situation to the bully XL. (And I'd be richer and have done nothing wrong!)

If I was designing dog laws now: 1. All breeders need DWA and registration 2. All owners must be insured 3. Pitbulls and high percentage derivatives banned 4. All dogs must do a minimum of 12 weeks classes before 12 months old. 5. Yearly dog MOT's - I think this would solve 90% of issues.

Wow that's really informative, cheers. You seem to know your stuff about dogs, so you work with them or just interested?I haven't even heard of some of these breeds. It will be interesting to see how they tackle these issues, hopefully they review current legislation and come up with some better ideas

 

[Fortitude]

Do you have any stats?

How many other breeds have killed their owners percentage wise in the last two years? I read a long list of owners some professional that have been killed this breed in recent years but I don't have any wide ranging stats across all breeds and owner profiles or bias or vested interest. Perhaps you have a bias as you even say a lazy pull with these links. I never said some other breed can't turn or kill its owner, I'm sure I could search and find one or two which could have bad owners or rare attacks the dog has turned while being considered to have been looked after well. We'd have to go through case by case, look at how many and how they're generally cared for which the authorities have the data on. Also some aggressive breeds do have a chance for attacks to be quelled due to being smaller, XL bully in particular seems to be very aggressive and larger.

If this breed has significantly higher cases of turning on, overpowering and killing its owners while being looked after then I think that would need to be considered.

You could look at this in reverse; there's been an explosion of these dogs some (not all) mixed up, cross bred, coming from terrible, impure lines, puppy farmed (or poorly backyard bred) and pumped out en masse because they're worth a fortune and supply simply must meet demand. They are by far the designer breed for people who have no business owning this kind of dog (because their intent is weaponisation and/or intimidation/respect, or they just haven't the foggiest on training a dog, let alone a literal lethal weapon) and proliferating many more homes than is healthy or safe, unlicensed - it's basically the Wild West out here and it went into overdrive during lockdown.

For the sheer amount of these dogs in homes that they shouldn't be in, given their power and lethality, the number of attacks and kills is not high and if they were as uniformly tapped in the head as people seem to think, the number of attacks and kills would be through the roof by now. Each attack is made big news of because the damage that these breeds can dish out is astonishing and potentially fatal, but no more fatal than any number of breeds that most people have no hope of fending off. I put no thought into "Rottweiler + attack," the case in Perth being the epitome of what can go wrong with any breed which is beyond your scope and hope to control or fend off. By her own account, her dogs came from a loving home and had no history of dangerous behaviour - the cliche'd 'wouldn't hurt a fly' that we hear in defence of dogs that are personalised and beloved to their owner. Rottweiler's aren't popular by today's standard and had their day in the sun before the emergence of the fighting terrier breeds, but it doesn't make them any less dangerous, there's just not enough of them to create this smoke.

By virtue of what we're talking about, which is, make no mistake, lethal animals in the hands of people who don't know what they're doing (for the most part), it has to be their control and temperament keeping numbers as low as they are, which is ironic in a thread where the breed is being lambasted. I don't know if you're close to a park or public area where dog walkers are, but the amount of times I've jogged past dogs that are potentially lethal (not just pits or terriers), who you can see from a distance as you approach that the owner is being walked by, is mind boggling; it's the dog's volition that it does nothing to you; it's walking its owner, for all intents and purposes.

I have no particular affection toward the breed, but demonising it is farcical. I know of several in real life as I’ve friends and family with them, some with kids in the same proximity. Not a single one of them has done anything wrong, all are friendly and affable, but you’re out of your mind if you don’t comprehend the inherent power and danger within them if they decide today’s the day. It’s a discussion I’ve had with each of those owners, all of whom I’d say have trained, socialised and catered to their dogs needs. They’re treated like any other dog in those homes. Family and all that. It’s as much of a nonsense with them as it would be with a Rottweiler, Cane Corso, Bull Mastiff, Tibetan Mastiff, Akita, Doberman or any other number of breed who could do tremendous damage to you or someone in your family in the blink of an eye if it felt like it. There’s no proliferation of those other breeds, though, so the number of incidents to examine would be less.

My feeling is that pit bulls etc. are by far the most likely to be mishandled, under trained or utilised by people who are not responsible owners - the combination of an incompetent person owning a lethal weapon and a dog that needs to be throughly trained and socialised from puppyhood is going to keep incidents higher than they need be. At the same time, big, powerful dogs have temperaments and personalities, and just like the Rottweiler’s in the Perth incident, if they decide to snap, the consequence of having a breed beyond your control will make themselves known.

 

[Fortitude]

Good post @owlo

 

[Mb194dc]

People can breed quite a few breeds to attack if they want to. They're pack animals, they can be trained, well or not.

Punish dog owners, severely if necessary. No reason to ban this breed or that, stupid.

 

[owlo]

Wow that's really informative, cheers. You seem to know your stuff about dogs, so you work with them or just interested?I haven't even heard of some of these breeds. It will be interesting to see how they tackle these issues, hopefully they review current legislation and come up with some better ideas

Trained them as a kid in the navy, loved them ever since. Don't do much beyond mine and walking/training a few for a local shelter these days. I sadly don't think there's any motivation/incentive to do a grassroots review of the legislation; they simply want to avoid fatalities [rather than encourage responsible dogs/raise the cost of ownership] and the legislation largely does that, loopholes aside. It's like a lot of animal legislation, a hobcobbling of mysterious laws put together by people who don't have a clue. (eg. you can't intentionally cull deer (which are hugely destructive) and feed them to wildlife parks, or feed purebred scottish wildcats live rodents so they learn to genuinely hunt before release.)

You could look at this in reverse; there's been an explosion of these dogs some (not all) mixed up, cross bred, coming from terrible, impure lines, puppy farmed (or poorly backyard bred) and pumped out en masse because they're worth a fortune and supply simply must meet demand. They are by far the designer breed for people who have no business owning this kind of dog (because their intent is weaponisation and/or intimidation/respect, or they just haven't the foggiest on training a dog, let alone a literal lethal weapon) and proliferating many more homes than is healthy or safe, unlicensed - it's basically the Wild West out here and it went into overdrive during lockdown.

For the sheer amount of these dogs in homes that they shouldn't be in, given their power and lethality, the number of attacks and kills is not high and if they were as uniformly tapped in the head as people seem to think, the number of attacks and kills would be through the roof by now. Each attack is made big news of because the damage that these breeds can dish out is astonishing and potentially fatal, but no more fatal than any number of breeds that most people have no hope of fending off. I put no thought into "Rottweiler + attack," the case in Perth being the epitome of what can go wrong with any breed which is beyond your scope and hope to control or fend off. By her own account, her dogs came from a loving home and had no history of dangerous behaviour - the cliche'd 'wouldn't hurt a fly' that we hear in defence of dogs that are personalised and beloved to their owner. Rottweiler's aren't popular by today's standard and had their day in the sun before the emergence of the fighting terrier breeds, but it doesn't make them any less dangerous, there's just not enough of them to create this smoke.

By virtue of what we're talking about, which is, make no mistake, lethal animals in the hands of people who don't know what they're doing (for the most part), it has to be their control and temperament keeping numbers as low as they are, which is ironic in a thread where the breed is being lambasted. I don't know if you're close to a park or public area where dog walkers are, but the amount of times I've jogged past dogs that are potentially lethal (not just pits or terriers), who you can see from a distance as you approach that the owner is being walked by, is mind boggling; it's the dog's volition that it does nothing to you; it's walking its owner, for all intents and purposes.

I have no particular affection toward the breed, but demonising it is farcical. I know of several in real life as I’ve friends and family with them, some with kids in the same proximity. Not a single one of them has done anything wrong, all are friendly and affable, but you’re out of your mind if you don’t comprehend the inherent power and danger within them if they decide today’s the day. It’s a discussion I’ve had with each of those owners, all of whom I’d say have trained, socialised and catered to their dogs needs. They’re treated like any other dog in those homes. Family and all that. It’s as much of a nonsense with them as it would be with a Rottweiler, Cane Corso, Bull Mastiff, Tibetan Mastiff, Akita, Doberman or any other number of breed who could do tremendous damage to you or someone in your family in the blink of an eye if it felt like it. There’s no proliferation of those other breeds, though, so the number of incidents to examine would be less.

My feeling is that pit bulls etc. are by far the most likely to be mishandled, under trained or utilised by people who are not responsible owners - the combination of an incompetent person owning a lethal weapon and a dog that needs to be throughly trained and socialised from puppyhood is going to keep incidents higher than they need be. At the same time, big, powerful dogs have temperaments and personalities, and just like the Rottweiler’s in the Perth incident, if they decide to snap, the consequence of having a breed beyond your control will make themselves known.

I somewhat disagree with this post, though I agree with certain points. I don't think describing dogs as 'lethal weapons' is helpful, any more than it is to describe kitchen knives as such. (People die to accidents with kitchen knives too.) Rotties are one of the most popular dog breeds in the world, topping the list in some countries, and I believe are #4 in Australia. I don't think size and power really determines lethality either. An example of this would be the GSD and Rottie - both are hugely popular, yet statistically do not cause a huge number of fatalities. They are animals who can do damage but very rarely will if well bred and are of correct temperament. I'd compare it to men at the pub; are you more likely to be assaulted and seriously injured by an aggressive drunk dude, or one of these dogs? Of course they can snap, the risk is always there if you don't correctly read them or they have been trained out of their warning signals (for example, if you are training your GSD that barking, growling, a high tail, and putting paws on are all unacceptable, and enforced this behaviour modification, there are chances he'll skip these steps and simply bite.

Mastiffs [and other large domestic animals like horses] however are distinctly predictable, which makes training and reliability very high. Although large, powerful, and often dominant they are responsible domesticated animals. They aren't like having a lion in your apartment, which although tamed could snap at any time as you say, and simply go on a rampage. (There are exceptions of course, husky [quite a small dog] group attacks being my favourite example). There will be incidents, but statistically these are so low you might as well never cross the road or get in a car if you're worried. There's little to no causation between size/power and lethality in dogs or animals in general. (Though I'd be impressed if your Papillon could even kill a rat. There's obviously a minimum size/power to do so.) - There's also a chance that any dog can get a brain tumour that makes him incredibly aggressive, and obviously the larger the dog, the bigger the problem.

Terriers (ignore the RBT, it's not a 'real' terrier here) are by nature pretty aggressive, but often too small to do real damage. The jack russell for example is one of the most annoying dogs around, and are probably one of the highest weighted dogs for 'attacks' on humans. This isn't because of poor owners or bad breeding; it's simply a function of the dog. However they are so small, fatalities are miniscule, so they don't get legislated. They are predisposed/hardwired to chase smaller creatures, assert dominance, and generally be a pain in the ass. It's like if you have a Irish Wolfhound off a leash in the park; it'll chase wildlife as that's what sighthounds do. It's not the dogs or the trainers fault that the dog does this; you simply gotta keep your sighthound on a lead though. (It can chase a small child/dog, and if it runs away it can cause issues). However when the terrier gets larger and more powerful, such as the pitbull, you're always taking a risk with this predisposition. This is why pitbulls and pitbull types are responsible for such a large percentage of fatalities. They are both powerful enough to do damage, and have the natural instinct to do so. As well as a large prey drive which makes them predisposed to 'hunt' small children/babies etc.

Lockdown as you say was a big issue because it prevented socialisation in the formative years, as well as all the other stuff you mentioned like the wrong people etc. I also agree we shouldn't be demonising the bully, but I do think it justifies a ban if it has a large percentage of pitbull. Statistically, there are far less of these dogs than others, and they are causing far more fatalities, so it's something that needs examined. There's no doubt in my mind that statistics support the argument that pitbulls are involved in more attacks, and more fatal attacks. The vast majority of attacks requiring emergency surgery are also from pitbulls. It's a breed not a handling issue.

 

[DJ_21]

Any dog can be vicious. The owners need to start getting questioned. How you bring your dog up and train it has a massive say in how it turns out.

 

[We need an rvn]

Any dog can be vicious. The owners need to start getting questioned. How you bring your dog up and train it has a massive say in how it turns out.

100% agree up to a certain level. A jack Russel can kill a baby just as quickly as an XL. Difference is if a 6kg jack Russel snaps at my ankles I can kick it away, I can’t do that to an XL.

a golden retriever and german Shepard are roughly the same weight and height but their inherent behaviour is vastly different.

it would take a lot to teach a GR to guard and behave like a Shepard.

so yes, owners have an impact on their dog behaviour, but a lot is also natural to each breed.

the xl is a dog designed to hurt, simple as and is a danger to people and other dogs.

 

[DJ_21]

100% agree up to a certain level. A jack Russel can kill a baby just as quickly as an XL. Difference is if a 6kg jack Russel snaps at my ankles I can kick it away, I can’t do that to an XL.

a golden retriever and german Shepard are roughly the same weight and height but their inherent behaviour is vastly different.

it would take a lot to teach a GR to guard and behave like a Shepard.

so yes, owners have an impact on their dog behaviour, but a lot is also natural to each breed.

the xl is a dog designed to hurt, simple as and is a danger to people and other dogs.

Some XL are really soft. Dogs getting a bad name due to certain ones. Every decade there’s a different dog that’s being target, GS, Doberman’s, even staffs have all had bad names. I actually had a staff that was soft as anything. I’ve now got a GS who’s really well trained and behaved, he’s great around people. Obvs like you said its in some dogs to naturally do what they do like have a protective instinct. My point is you can’t call the name of a dog breed down to one dog being out of control, that’s like giving all men a bad name down to the ones who abuse woman etc.

 

[Wibble]

Probably a lot. Someone did a drive by on their house a few months ago. XL Bully wont help there!

I guess you could hide behind one.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Yep, you need to get a dog that is right for you. And breeders need to take responsibility and sell dogs that are right for their owners. A boerboel is a lovely velcro dog, but needs the correct socialisation and training to be safe. There's a story relevant to the quote below, where a loner girl had an RBT for years, they got on great. Then she got a boyfriend, the dog started to completely dominate him, and they had to take him for rehoming. Settled in with his new owners just fine, and with the correct training has been a lovely dog.

There's definitely value to people who've gone through childhood abuse/DV getting a large dog that makes them feel protected. A boerboel or several other breeds can be brilliant for this. Training should be mandatory though and it should have regular check ups.

An interesting learning from taking my Boerboel to do pet therapy, he was great with the old ladies and men that he knew at the facility but when new male residents arrived he was often standoff-ish and apprehensive about engaging them.

By chance I once shook a new resident's hand when first meeting and the dog immediately warmed to him. I assume he saw the handshake as my signal that he could trust them and from then a simple handshake became a great asset in all social situations.

 

[Fortitude]

I somewhat disagree with this post, though I agree with certain points. I don't think describing dogs as 'lethal weapons' is helpful, any more than it is to describe kitchen knives as such. (People die to accidents with kitchen knives too.) Rotties are one of the most popular dog breeds in the world, topping the list in some countries, and I believe are #4 in Australia. I don't think size and power really determines lethality either. An example of this would be the GSD and Rottie - both are hugely popular, yet statistically do not cause a huge number of fatalities. They are animals who can do damage but very rarely will if well bred and are of correct temperament. I'd compare it to men at the pub; are you more likely to be assaulted and seriously injured by an aggressive drunk dude, or one of these dogs? Of course they can snap, the risk is always there if you don't correctly read them or they have been trained out of their warning signals (for example, if you are training your GSD that barking, growling, a high tail, and putting paws on are all unacceptable, and enforced this behaviour modification, there are chances he'll skip these steps and simply bite.

Mastiffs [and other large domestic animals like horses] however are distinctly predictable, which makes training and reliability very high. Although large, powerful, and often dominant they are responsible domesticated animals. They aren't like having a lion in your apartment, which although tamed could snap at any time as you say, and simply go on a rampage. (There are exceptions of course, husky [quite a small dog] group attacks being my favourite example). There will be incidents, but statistically these are so low you might as well never cross the road or get in a car if you're worried. There's little to no causation between size/power and lethality in dogs or animals in general. (Though I'd be impressed if your Papillon could even kill a rat. There's obviously a minimum size/power to do so.) - There's also a chance that any dog can get a brain tumour that makes him incredibly aggressive, and obviously the larger the dog, the bigger the problem.

Terriers (ignore the RBT, it's not a 'real' terrier here) are by nature pretty aggressive, but often too small to do real damage. The jack russell for example is one of the most annoying dogs around, and are probably one of the highest weighted dogs for 'attacks' on humans. This isn't because of poor owners or bad breeding; it's simply a function of the dog. However they are so small, fatalities are miniscule, so they don't get legislated. They are predisposed/hardwired to chase smaller creatures, assert dominance, and generally be a pain in the ass. It's like if you have a Irish Wolfhound off a leash in the park; it'll chase wildlife as that's what sighthounds do. It's not the dogs or the trainers fault that the dog does this; you simply gotta keep your sighthound on a lead though. (It can chase a small child/dog, and if it runs away it can cause issues). However when the terrier gets larger and more powerful, such as the pitbull, you're always taking a risk with this predisposition. This is why pitbulls and pitbull types are responsible for such a large percentage of fatalities. They are both powerful enough to do damage, and have the natural instinct to do so. As well as a large prey drive which makes them predisposed to 'hunt' small children/babies etc.

Lockdown as you say was a big issue because it prevented socialisation in the formative years, as well as all the other stuff you mentioned like the wrong people etc. I also agree we shouldn't be demonising the bully, but I do think it justifies a ban if it has a large percentage of pitbull. Statistically, there are far less of these dogs than others, and they are causing far more fatalities, so it's something that needs examined. There's no doubt in my mind that statistics support the argument that pitbulls are involved in more attacks, and more fatal attacks. The vast majority of attacks requiring emergency surgery are also from pitbulls. It's a breed not a handling issue.

The point to using the term lethal weapon is that you have an animal that can, indeed, be lethal enough to cause a fatality. There's a disconnect for many dog owners of larger, powerful breeds with the fact because it's their dog, in their home and part of their family and asides from that, has literally never done anything wrong in terms of showing aggression or being a potential menace. It doesn't detract from the animal still having the innate power within it to cause fatality or serious, life-changing amounts of damage, particularly in homes where the owners are extremely ill-equipped to do anything if their beloved pet turned on them.

I really like dogs and I've grown up around all sorts via friends and family, but I've never had the disonnance to pretend or overlook that some breeds come with a roll of the dice, not for them being terrors out the gate, but for the innate power and force they carry. I'm more uneasy with my friends and family who have their dog around their kids and whatnot without a shred of doubt that it'll ever betray their trust because it's a well-trained, friendly and socialised family member to them.

Unfortunately, I've seen far too much of the other side of the coin with irresponsible owners who are simply awful and shouldn't be anywhere near such breeds, but have them as accessories and are more nefarious in what they honestly want such dogs for. In nearly all instances, I'll look at the owner and the upbringing or conditions set for the dog and take my cue from that. Bad owners are at the root of most of these issues, imo.

I was going to mention the 1st bolded in my own post, but I don't think it fits with the narrative people want to hear, or I guess it's generally accepted because such dogs can't do much damage. The other bits of the paragraph I've bolded, like I said in my initial post, there are more (a lot more) well behaved dangerous terriers than there aren't, but the ferocity and damage inflicted if they go off the rails is always going to be newsworthy. Unlike the smaller breeds who can be very, very badly behaved when it comes to bites etc., the larger breeds can have a one-strike and done, which is why they are demonised, but also why their record has to be exemplary from birth to death. "Dangerous" terriers are the most en vogue of the chided breeds over here (UK); it used to be the Staffordshire bull terrier that got all the flack and stigma, then it moved on to the Pit before all this dilution occurred, but the theme has remained, and the media have honed in on 'lock-jaw' ever since - we're hard-wired and conditioned to the stigma attached and the attacks compound that (but again, for me, that goes back to the hand-in-hand of people who should never, ever have any type of dangerous dog, just so happening to throw their proverbial dart on "Pit" or "Bully XL"). I cited the Perth attack because of what it represents - which, apparently is reserved for these terriers - good, domesticated dogs who turned on their owner. It happens and it's a risk you run handling dogs you haven't a hope against.

The last paragraph, my issue, as outlined above is that the amount of irresponsible people with these particular breeds is going to skew the data. As you say, if you don't put in the work or if not attuned to the breed your handling, the recipe for disaster is right there and you're a major part of the why and how. If you're getting a dog to scare others or to feel empowered or to show off its musculature etc. primarily, you're already a good portion of the way to where these breeds shouldn't be. It's just the worst combination and predisposes so many of these dogs to the worst of upbringings leading to what we have. I'll ask the same question to you: if these kind of terrible owners had another breed, treated it the exact same way as the breeds they do have, do you think the outcome would be different with regard to the behavioural issues and temperament of the dog? Let's switch out dangerous terrier for Rottweiler.

 

[owlo]

The point to using the term lethal weapon is that you have an animal that can, indeed, be lethal enough to cause a fatality. There's a disconnect for many dog owners of larger, powerful breeds with the fact because it's their dog, in their home and part of their family and asides from that, has literally never done anything wrong in terms of showing aggression or being a potential menace. It doesn't detract from the animal still having the innate power within it to cause fatality or serious, life-changing amounts of damage, particularly in homes where the owners are extremely ill-equipped to do anything if their beloved pet turned on them.

I really like dogs and I've grown up around all sorts via friends and family, but I've never had the disonnance to pretend or overlook that some breeds come with a roll of the dice, not for them being terrors out the gate, but for the innate power and force they carry. I'm more uneasy with my friends and family who have their dog around their kids and whatnot without a shred of doubt that it'll ever betray their trust because it's a well-trained, friendly and socialised family member to them.

Unfortunately, I've seen far too much of the other side of the coin with irresponsible owners who are simply awful and shouldn't be anywhere near such breeds, but have them as accessories and are more nefarious in what they honestly want such dogs for. In nearly all instances, I'll look at the owner and the upbringing or conditions set for the dog and take my cue from that. Bad owners are at the root of most of these issues, imo.

I was going to mention the 1st bolded in my own post, but I don't think it fits with the narrative people want to hear, or I guess it's generally accepted because such dogs can't do much damage. The other bits of the paragraph I've bolded, like I said in my initial post, there are more (a lot more) well behaved dangerous terriers than there aren't, but the ferocity and damage inflicted if they go off the rails is always going to be newsworthy. Unlike the smaller breeds who can be very, very badly behaved when it comes to bites etc., the larger breeds can have a one-strike and done, which is why they are demonised, but also why their record has to be exemplary from birth to death. "Dangerous" terriers are the most en vogue of the chided breeds over here (UK); it used to be the Staffordshire bull terrier that got all the flack and stigma, then it moved on to the Pit before all this dilution occurred, but the theme has remained, and the media have honed in on 'lock-jaw' ever since - we're hard-wired and conditioned to the stigma attached and the attacks compound that (but again, for me, that goes back to the hand-in-hand of people who should never, ever have any type of dangerous dog, just so happening to throw their proverbial dart on "Pit" or "Bully XL"). I cited the Perth attack because of what it represents - which, apparently is reserved for these terriers - good, domesticated dogs who turned on their owner. It happens and it's a risk you run handling dogs you haven't a hope against.

The last paragraph, my issue, as outlined above is that the amount of irresponsible people with these particular breeds is going to skew the data. As you say, if you don't put in the work or if not attuned to the breed your handling, the recipe for disaster is right there and you're a major part of the why and how. If you're getting a dog to scare others or to feel empowered or to show off its musculature etc. primarily, you're already a good portion of the way to where these breeds shouldn't be. It's just the worst combination and predisposes so many of these dogs to the worst of upbringings leading to what we have. I'll ask the same question to you: if these kind of terrible owners had another breed, treated it the exact same way as the breeds they do have, do you think the outcome would be different with regard to the behavioural issues and temperament of the dog? Let's switch out dangerous terrier for Rottweiler.

You bring up a good point in that people are desensitized to the power/capability of their dog, because they see them as a well trained fluffball who doesn't cause any issues. I think we are all guilty of that, myself included. That said, they are probably that way because of such treatment and training. It's no different from having a car or cow or horse where you don't see it as a threat to you, but it certainly could be in other circumstances. Zoo keepers and farmers are often guilty of this with their animals. That said (and leading now to the question in your last paragraph) most breeds that have good pedigree and training are extremely unlikely to simply turn on you. Outside of a brain tumour or extreme stress situation (eg. you suddenly die and their foster carer is an ass) most dogs will not simply 'turn' on a family. There are of course caveats to this; GSD's for example have a propensity for biting small children and should be supervised around them. Huskys and a few other breeds should be separated around children. But the vast majority of breeds will not turn like that. It's incredibly rare.

If an irresponsible bad owner has any dog, it will indeed manifest in trouble. There's of course sliding scales of what constitutes 'bad.' I mentioned to you the DV girl who got a boyfriend and it dominated him and they had to get rid - that's a 'bad' owner, but not a "bad" owner if you get my drift. A dog can be sick or depressed or any number of things, and a bad owner may not notice the signals until too late. There are breed nuances; for example GSD's will bite small kids as above, Rotties and Boerboels will lash out at adult strangers, and a police Malinois may have a history of neck bites. In all these examples though, the owners are bad and not paying attention and eventually it will result in a fatality. In the girls case, she rehomed the dog and it was ok, in the police case they didn't pick up that they had 16 aggressive dogs until far too late and they had to be put down. In a Rottie/Boerboel case there will be many warning signs before the fatality. But as you say, a bad owner will generally lead to a fatality. Thankfully though, bad owners are a minority. Your point that pitbull owners are generally more irresponsible is fact, but the percentage is still low. A good owner will generally not own a pitbull though, so it may be vicious cycle.


I'd instead like to talk about dogs with good owners in your scenario. A good happy dog is generally 'safe' around and will not snap as above. (You still don't leave your 5 year old with a GSD, but an English Mastiff or CC will be fine with him.) The risk is really miniscule; statistically you and your kids are more likely to be hurt in a car crash and you still drive. The dog will still exhibit its natural behaviours and this is not a bad thing with most breeds. But a well trained pitbull type is still inherently dangerous and they don't warn in the same way that most dogs do. They comprise 6% of the dog population in the USA, and are responsible for 68% of bites and over 50% of dog fatalities since 1982. They are also most likely by far to turn on owners and young family members and to kill other pets and livestock. There's so many stories about good parents/dog owners seeing the dog suddenly attack the child, and being unable to part it with them. The difference is this:

A well trained pitbull will mostly be loving to his family and friends (although a danger to other animals), but the risk profile is unacceptable. There is often no warning. Statistically they will kill people each year, and not just as freak accidents. This in my opinion is a good reason to legislate; the risk profile is unacceptable, especially to more vulnerable adults, kids, and animals.

A well trained Rottweiler or other large powerful dog will almost always be loving to his family and friends. Freak accidents can happen, but the risk profile is so low, it's not worth discussing.

A badly trained or abused dog of any breed is generally dangerous and unpredictable. However, before reaching the fatality stage there will almost always be multiple warning signs and possibilities for intervention.

And just for kicks, I'll add this one. A well trained/tamed lioness or jaguaress will mostly be loving to her family, but the risk profile is unacceptable.

You'd honestly be better off with a serval or even a cheetah than a pitbull....Your kids definitely would be. And it's way cooler.

An interesting learning from taking my Boerboel to do pet therapy, he was great with the old ladies and men that he knew at the facility but when new male residents arrived he was often standoff-ish and apprehensive about engaging them.

By chance I once shook a new resident's hand when first meeting and the dog immediately warmed to him. I assume he saw the handshake as my signal that he could trust them and from then a simple handshake became a great asset in all social situations.

This is a great example of signalling! Smart dog to translate a handshake to safety. Boerboels are incredibly sensitive and latch on to your non verbal cues. Perhaps you were more tense around the male residents. He'll always be looking to you trying to read [and please] you. Brilliant dogs.

I remember visiting a little pub in Newcastle when he was younger; there was a giant Rottweiler there. Never seen one so big who was not fat. (they had to mop up his drool after he left) - My dog took one look at him, saw him playing with the small kids of the owner who were happily pulling his ears or whatever and he wasn't bothered, just shrugged and they ignored each other. He's learned since then, if the other dog is minding his own business, then I [and by extension he] should not be worried. Even if I'm staring gormlessly in amazement at the 100kg black beast. It's why socialization from a young age is so important.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

This is a great example of signalling! Smart dog to translate a handshake to safety. Boerboels are incredibly sensitive and latch on to your non verbal cues. Perhaps you were more tense around the male residents. He'll always be looking to you trying to read [and please] you. Brilliant dogs.

Yeah he was great. Definitely sensitive and he could read me very well. I think with the pet therapy I was more embarrassed than anything as he was usually so friendly and to see him not want to engage with someone was the opposite of what we were supposed to do.

There was one care worker at the facility who adored him. A short plump woman with a big toothy smile. He was terrified of her, I assume because of the toothy grin but he was also the type to be a bit frightened when strangers were too interested in him. We worked on it each week and after a few months he would take treats from her mouth and was equally enamoured with her.

I remember visiting a little pub in Newcastle when he was younger; there was a giant Rottweiler there. Never seen one so big who was not fat. (they had to mop up his drool after he left) - My dog took one look at him, saw him playing with the small kids of the owner who were happily pulling his ears or whatever and he wasn't bothered, just shrugged and they ignored each other. He's learned since then, if the other dog is minding his own business, then I [and by extension he] should not be worried. Even if I'm staring gormlessly in amazement at the 100kg black beast. It's why socialization from a young age is so important.

That's great. My guy was always good with other dogs. For a time his best mate was a shih tzu. Seeing them rough housing together was quite a sight.

 

[M16Red]

Define large? Like a Labrador and above?

Dog = 25kg+
Human = 35%+ bmi

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Do people think Staffys should be banned?

The problem with Staffys is that they get cross bred with pitbulls and other mad feckers, so often when you see the news of a "Staffy" attacking someone it's got more dickhead dog in it than anything else. Most purebred Staffys (if there's even such a thing) that I've encountered are really docile. A bit skippy when they're excited and being friendly (which is whenever they meet a new person) but they come to heel and calm down instantly. They're incredibly patient with kids as well, probably more than I've seen with any other breed. They just want to do whatever they can to be your friend.

I'll always compare other Staffys to my one though, who has been around kids for most of his life after being rescued from some chav arsehole who ditched him when he wouldn't fight. Some dogs just have a calm and kind nature, and he's exactly that with an added dash of goofiness.

Any dog can hurt someone, though. And it gets to a point where you look at a jaw like his and think "he could easily rip my throat out if he knew it was a possibility". I'm pretty confident that a small Yorkie or poodle would bite someone before he would but if he ever did the damage would be far greater.

I wish I had an answer to your question.

 

[Fortitude]

You bring up a good point in that people are desensitized to the power/capability of their dog, because they see them as a well trained fluffball who doesn't cause any issues. I think we are all guilty of that, myself included. That said, they are probably that way because of such treatment and training. It's no different from having a car or cow or horse where you don't see it as a threat to you, but it certainly could be in other circumstances. Zoo keepers and farmers are often guilty of this with their animals. That said (and leading now to the question in your last paragraph) most breeds that have good pedigree and training are extremely unlikely to simply turn on you. Outside of a brain tumour or extreme stress situation (eg. you suddenly die and their foster carer is an ass) most dogs will not simply 'turn' on a family. There are of course caveats to this; GSD's for example have a propensity for biting small children and should be supervised around them. Huskys and a few other breeds should be separated around children. But the vast majority of breeds will not turn like that. It's incredibly rare.

If an irresponsible bad owner has any dog, it will indeed manifest in trouble. There's of course sliding scales of what constitutes 'bad.' I mentioned to you the DV girl who got a boyfriend and it dominated him and they had to get rid - that's a 'bad' owner, but not a "bad" owner if you get my drift. A dog can be sick or depressed or any number of things, and a bad owner may not notice the signals until too late. There are breed nuances; for example GSD's will bite small kids as above, Rotties and Boerboels will lash out at adult strangers, and a police Malinois may have a history of neck bites. In all these examples though, the owners are bad and not paying attention and eventually it will result in a fatality. In the girls case, she rehomed the dog and it was ok, in the police case they didn't pick up that they had 16 aggressive dogs until far too late and they had to be put down. In a Rottie/Boerboel case there will be many warning signs before the fatality. But as you say, a bad owner will generally lead to a fatality. Thankfully though, bad owners are a minority. Your point that pitbull owners are generally more irresponsible is fact, but the percentage is still low. A good owner will generally not own a pitbull though, so it may be vicious cycle.


I'd instead like to talk about dogs with good owners in your scenario. A good happy dog is generally 'safe' around and will not snap as above. (You still don't leave your 5 year old with a GSD, but an English Mastiff or CC will be fine with him.) The risk is really miniscule; statistically you and your kids are more likely to be hurt in a car crash and you still drive. The dog will still exhibit its natural behaviours and this is not a bad thing with most breeds. But a well trained pitbull type is still inherently dangerous and they don't warn in the same way that most dogs do. They comprise 6% of the dog population in the USA, and are responsible for 68% of bites and over 50% of dog fatalities since 1982. They are also most likely by far to turn on owners and young family members and to kill other pets and livestock. There's so many stories about good parents/dog owners seeing the dog suddenly attack the child, and being unable to part it with them. The difference is this:

A well trained pitbull will mostly be loving to his family and friends (although a danger to other animals), but the risk profile is unacceptable. There is often no warning. Statistically they will kill people each year, and not just as freak accidents. This in my opinion is a good reason to legislate; the risk profile is unacceptable, especially to more vulnerable adults, kids, and animals.

A well trained Rottweiler or other large powerful dog will almost always be loving to his family and friends. Freak accidents can happen, but the risk profile is so low, it's not worth discussing.

A badly trained or abused dog of any breed is generally dangerous and unpredictable. However, before reaching the fatality stage there will almost always be multiple warning signs and possibilities for intervention.

And just for kicks, I'll add this one. A well trained/tamed lioness or jaguaress will mostly be loving to her family, but the risk profile is unacceptable.

You'd honestly be better off with a serval or even a cheetah than a pitbull....Your kids definitely would be. And it's way cooler.

I like that there’s logic and reasoning to what you type, but I do feel there’s a taint towards the breed as ‘matter of fact,’ which any amount of my own anecdotal evidence can do nothing against. I know of a fair amount of homes with these dogs in with zero incident and, to all intents and purposes, a lovely, affable, “normal” dog in them. Granted that same dog has the potential to be what you, and many others state, but this goes back to the one strike issue I mentioned and also belies the notion that many, many more of these dogs live out normal lives than don’t. For the record, I know of zero real life attacks from the breed you’ve said has no warning before attacking, whilst knowing of two Rott’s who have gone rogue. All from “loving” well raising households. The risk profile you’ve mentioned has been different in my own experience, but to me, both breeds are to be approached with the exact same caution.

The issue with data presented is that, by far, these breeds are the most illegally, chaotically bred and the account for how many are out there is going to be skewed, because as overbred as they are, they are also under-represented in official logs because they shouldn’t be being bred in the first place, so again, we’re back in this Wild West environment where the real numbers have no way of being logged and they invariably going to be underrepresented.

A huge issue with the breed is they are the flammable liquid and a lot of the time, their owners and upbringings is the match; just a recipe for what we see and I don’t think any other breed is as mis-handled and in the hands of people they shouldn’t be as these are. To me, it’s the elephant in the room that cannot be ignored.

I’m not trying to champion them, but I’ll maintain that beyond a certain level of strength and power, any owner is rolling the dice and you can believe it comes down to the hair trigger nature of certain breeds, but from what I’ve seen/known of (zero incidents as stated above), they’ve been no different to breeds who have nowhere near as bad a rep. We all know what the consequences are for that one strike, however, and that’s the real issue and fear. Whilst understandable, it still leads to demonisation.

 

[Bert_]

Half of all XL Bully dogs in Britain descend from 'Killer Kimbo'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ullys-descend-one-inbred-pet-us-killer-kimbo/

Some dogs have been bred for one purpose and are not meant to be pets. May as well have a pet Hyena.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

Half of all XL Bully dogs in Britain descend from 'Killer Kimbo'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ullys-descend-one-inbred-pet-us-killer-kimbo/

Some dogs have been bred for one purpose and are not meant to be pets. May as well have a pet Hyena.

So sad but again humans. They just have to find a way to pinpoint the violent ones and control the breeding somehow. They should be monitoring them closely and if they have any reports of violence the owners needs to be investigated as well and agree to proper training. If they can't, take the dog away and place them in an environment where someone will be responsible for them. It's not a coincidence that it's mostly dirtbags who owns the violent ones.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

So sad but again humans. They just have to find a way to pinpoint the violent ones and control the breeding somehow. They should be monitoring them closely and if they have any reports of violence the owners needs to be investigated as well and agree to proper training. If they can't, take the dog away and place them in an environment where someone will be responsible for them. It's not a coincidence that it's mostly dirtbags who owns the violent ones.

Breeders are supposed to select for temperament and responsible ones do.

Unfortunately there's a market for aggressive dogs and breeding is virtually unregulated.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

Breeders are supposed to select for temperament and responsible ones do.

Unfortunately there's a market for aggressive dogs and breeding is virtually unregulated.

In some circles it's a status thing to have an aggressive dogs. They're also not treated right and that's why they think humans are the problem and attack when they get a chance. Illtreated by humans so they associate that with danger. It's a sad circle of events that leads to innocent people getting mauled.

 

[owlo]

I like that there’s logic and reasoning to what you type, but I do feel there’s a taint towards the breed as ‘matter of fact,’ which any amount of my own anecdotal evidence can do nothing against. I know of a fair amount of homes with these dogs in with zero incident and, to all intents and purposes, a lovely, affable, “normal” dog in them. Granted that same dog has the potential to be what you, and many others state, but this goes back to the one strike issue I mentioned and also belies the notion that many, many more of these dogs live out normal lives than don’t. For the record, I know of zero real life attacks from the breed you’ve said has no warning before attacking, whilst knowing of two Rott’s who have gone rogue. All from “loving” well raising households. The risk profile you’ve mentioned has been different in my own experience, but to me, both breeds are to be approached with the exact same caution.

The issue with data presented is that, by far, these breeds are the most illegally, chaotically bred and the account for how many are out there is going to be skewed, because as overbred as they are, they are also under-represented in official logs because they shouldn’t be being bred in the first place, so again, we’re back in this Wild West environment where the real numbers have no way of being logged and they invariably going to be underrepresented.

A huge issue with the breed is they are the flammable liquid and a lot of the time, their owners and upbringings is the match; just a recipe for what we see and I don’t think any other breed is as mis-handled and in the hands of people they shouldn’t be as these are. To me, it’s the elephant in the room that cannot be ignored.

I’m not trying to champion them, but I’ll maintain that beyond a certain level of strength and power, any owner is rolling the dice and you can believe it comes down to the hair trigger nature of certain breeds, but from what I’ve seen/known of (zero incidents as stated above), they’ve been no different to breeds who have nowhere near as bad a rep. We all know what the consequences are for that one strike, however, and that’s the real issue and fear. Whilst understandable, it still leads to demonisation.

We'll have to agree to disagree. You're completely correct on the data showing that they are chaotically bred, owned, and abused, but I feel that does not negate causation between the breed predispositions themselves. It could well be a combination which has resulted in pitbulls being more dangerous (or even that this is the major factor), but nonetheless the statistics remain true: They are by far the most lethal breed in all circumstances.

Having a bit of experience with working dogs (including dogs trained to bite), I can tell you anecdotally they are incredibly reliable. It's not a roll of the dice because there is normally no (or incredibly rare) 'hair trigger nature' in any breed. The perception may be that any dog that's big and aggressive is unpredictable, but most are not so. There's a reason why pitbulls are not used for much professional work any more despite being intelligent, strong, and fearless. Ask yourself, if they are equal to and as reliable as other breeds; why do 'good' owners not want them given their obvious qualities?

Do you believe that big cats/wolves/whatever should be legal to own without a DWA? Because in 99.9% of scenarios they are 'safe' too.

 

[owlo]

Such blatant plagiarism. https://bullywatch.link/2023/08/01/finding-kimbo/ is the root article these were 'stolen' from. Only read this article when I googled that telegraph one.

On the subject of 'aggressive' dogs, I've booked myself a flight to Poland in a couple of weeks to begin the process of finding one to finally replace my old boy. It's this breed or another Boerboel.

@Dr. Dwayne @Scarlett Dracarys There's nothing wrong with aggression in dogs, it's rather a useful trait!

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Such blatant plagiarism. https://bullywatch.link/2023/08/01/finding-kimbo/ is the root article these were 'stolen' from. Only read this article when I googled that telegraph one.

On the subject of 'aggressive' dogs, I've booked myself a flight to Poland in a couple of weeks to begin the process of finding one to finally replace my old boy. It's this breed or another Boerboel.

@Dr. Dwayne @Scarlett Dracarys There's nothing wrong with aggression in dogs, it's rather a useful trait!

Yes, sorry. I'm speaking of breeders who aren't breeding dogs specifically for working.

 

[owlo]

Yes, sorry. I'm speaking of breeders who aren't breeding dogs specifically for working.

Meant to tag you in the sentence above and scarlet in that part!

 

[tomaldinho1]

Do people think Staffys should be banned?

No, my experience with them has only been positive (although that doesn’t count for much on a nationwide scale I guess) but unless they want to ban a lot more breeds I don’t really see the benefit.

Being objective, what the gov will likely do is look at size/weight etc. Dog attacks will always happen but the actual banned list is made up of unnecessarily powerful and heavy dogs that most fully grown men, let alone a kid, would not be able to fend off. Feel you’re more at risk from an Alsatian (by far the dog I’ve had the most issues with) and others than a staffy.

 

[fergosaurus]

Saw some eejit earlier taking an XL bully into a busy coffee shop and queuing with it in the city centre. No muzzle and wasn't even on a tight lead. Saw another the other day on a route I usually go for a run, my first thought was if bear spray was legal I'd probably be carrying it around with me everywhere.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

From the big London protest today. They look exactly like the folk you'd expect to be there.

They don't need the dogs but they'll fight to the bitter end for them. Why? Because they always have to fight. Try and tell them that Toblerones are lethal and they'll suddenly be marching in support of them. I'm also surprised that they managed to find the time to make the placards after a long week of working 9-5.

 

[Bert_]

Saw some eejit earlier taking an XL bully into a busy coffee shop and queuing with it in the city centre. No muzzle and wasn't even on a tight lead. Saw another the other day on a route I usually go for a run, my first thought was if bear spray was legal I'd probably be carrying it around with me everywhere.

Probably wouldn't stop an XL Bully. They've been engineered to fight to the death and had any indistincts for self preservation bred out of them.

 

[fergosaurus]

Probably wouldn't stop an XL Bully. They've been engineered to fight to the death and had any indistincts for self preservation bred out of them.

You're probably right. Now that you say that I remember seeing a video of police spraying pepper spray at a pitbull and that was latched onto another dog and it took ages to have an effect.

 

[Snow]

People say adopt, don't shop. The dogs that attack are usually the adopted dogs that come from abused homes and the owner isn't aware how to deal with that kind of trauma and doesn't recognize the warning signs.

Same as with people, usually the problem is the upbringing. The solution is more education but that's not easy to implement.

 

[Sweet Square]

It seems a ban would lower numbers but could mean other breeds would take up the role instead. So it’s not really the answer.

I do feel sorry for the dogs as it’s not their fault they are the choice for some of the biggest arseholes in the country.

 

[Sweet Square]

From the big London protest today. They look exactly like the folk you'd expect to be there.

They don't need the dogs but they'll fight to the bitter end for them. Why? Because they always have to fight. Try and tell them that Toblerones are lethal and they'll suddenly be marching in support of them. I'm also surprised that they managed to find the time to make the placards after a long week of working 9-5.

Apparently there were rumours of protesters bringing their own bullies along to this event. But they decide against it because of safety concerns.

 

[Fortitude]

We'll have to agree to disagree. You're completely correct on the data showing that they are chaotically bred, owned, and abused, but I feel that does not negate causation between the breed predispositions themselves. It could well be a combination which has resulted in pitbulls being more dangerous (or even that this is the major factor), but nonetheless the statistics remain true: They are by far the most lethal breed in all circumstances.

Having a bit of experience with working dogs (including dogs trained to bite), I can tell you anecdotally they are incredibly reliable. It's not a roll of the dice because there is normally no (or incredibly rare) 'hair trigger nature' in any breed. The perception may be that any dog that's big and aggressive is unpredictable, but most are not so. There's a reason why pitbulls are not used for much professional work any more despite being intelligent, strong, and fearless. Ask yourself, if they are equal to and as reliable as other breeds; why do 'good' owners not want them given their obvious qualities?

Do you believe that big cats/wolves/whatever should be legal to own without a DWA? Because in 99.9% of scenarios they are 'safe' too.

I've enjoyed the discussion as you are reasoned and back up what you write with what you believe to be solid evidence. I think agreeing to disagree is fair enough because we can only go by what we've known and experienced - data, particularly on the breed(s) we're discussing, is just impossible to correctly parse because of the designer status (demand) of the breed and the utterly irresponsible and unregulated markets they are farmed in and for.

I've been around more dangerous terriers in my life than any other breed classed as lethal and not once have I seen one have the aggression or horrid stance toward humans they are feared for. I've seen a few that you simply cannot have other dogs around, however, that's an identifiable problem I can vouch for first-hand, but the human aspect, it's just not what I've known and we're talking about a number of dogs in households here. I'm not one to ever consider such breeds safe and that's not for doing anything wrong at all, but rather for the fact it's still a pitbull or an XL or mixed and it is a lethal animal in your home. I've been lulled a bit by a few, but ultimately, it's in my own interest to keep that mental acuity to what is potential powder keg. As I said in a previous post, people see these dogs as members of their family and most simply cannot consider their own dog even a potential threat to them.

Pitbulls and other dangerous breeds of terrier aren't going to be good working dogs for a myriad of reasons, but you can say that for a load of non-lethal breeds, too. I don't think that's much of a barometer, personally.

To the bolded. It's the same principle - lethal animal raised from puppy or kittenhood that is part of the family, but also an animal with the capability to kill on any given bad day - there are loads of YouTube channels with these animals being just as sweet and affable with their family as a domesticated breed is, the caveat obviously being it's a fecking Wolf/Cheetah/Puma/Tiger/Lion; you're going great guns with any of them... until you're not, and it's ultimately seen as you getting what you deserve if any of them decide to end you. Funnily enough, I'm subscribed to Luna the Pantera used to watch some Kody Antle vids and watched a lot of vids from a woman who effortlessly strolls around with all manner of big cats at a reserve (can't remember her name and her vids are off my algorithm now), as well as things like this. I find it all rather fascinating, particularly Luna as that panther with the Rottweiler they own are best friends and don't look like they have even a hint of the capability to kill about them, yet we're talking about a panther (and to a lesser extent, a Rottweiler)! As you reference 99.9%, the discussion is about the consequence of that 0.01% these animals are; [much] less domesticated so unpredictability and volatility supposedly through the roof.

If you've hand-reared the animal successfully and are accepted by it as family/alpha or whatever you wish to term where it won't show you hostility, the attitude is going to be different to if it's showing volatility during adolescence, which is generally time when people let go of their domesticated dogs showing hostility, too, (that, or the time when things really go south as the training stops and the animal is allowed to have its own way by asserting dominance - see countless TV shows about out of control dogs) the answer is ultimately no, because irresponsible people will be the first lining up to mistreat and mis-train and it's just an extension of what we already have.

 

[stevoc]

Dog = 25kg+
Human = 35%+ bmi

So everything from Border Collies and Basset Hounds upwards then.

I don't think your idea is workable mate.

 

[Wibble]

Dog = 25kg+

By that definition many putbulls wouldn't need a muzzle and my setters would. Muzzling setters would be unnecessary and cruel.

 

[Wibble]

Size is a consideration but not as much as a breeds mentality/purpose and their physiology e.g. jaw strength.

When you consider a ban you do also need to consider the type of people who buy particular breeds. Dogs desired by the sort of people who attended that protest (sadly for the dogs) must move up the list for ban consideration.

There may need to be bans but some dogs might need regulation, approved owners, compulsory training and special keeping conditions (or whatever).

Neutering and muzzling the feckwit owners might help but I'd guess thay would cry about it. The snowflakes.

 

[Fortitude]

From the big London protest today. They look exactly like the folk you'd expect to be there.

They don't need the dogs but they'll fight to the bitter end for them. Why? Because they always have to fight. Try and tell them that Toblerones are lethal and they'll suddenly be marching in support of them. I'm also surprised that they managed to find the time to make the placards after a long week of working 9-5.

Unfortunately, the stereotypes often fit to a tee when it comes to dogs and particularly the more dangerous breeds.

These people are the ones we cast aspersions and presumption upon as owners, but what a gamble there is in finding out whether they are exemplary owners caring for their dogs' wellbeing as well as their fellow citizen...

It's no wonder it's a doomed breed when you see the state of the owners that come out to protest... one might say non-judgementally ( -_- ). It's also folk like those protesters who legitimately good, caring owners can see do more harm than good for their cause.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Unfortunately, the stereotypes often fit to a tee when it comes to dogs and particularly the more dangerous breeds.

These people are the ones we cast aspersions and presumption upon as owners, but what a gamble there is in finding out whether they are exemplary owners caring for their dogs' wellbeing as well as their fellow citizen...

It's no wonder it's a doomed breed when you see the state of the owners that come out to protest... one might say non-judgementally ( -_- ). It's also folk like those protesters who legitimately good, caring owners can see do more harm than good for their cause.

Your response is too diplomatic for me, I want more mouth foaming please.

 

[Eyepopper]

From the big London protest today. They look exactly like the folk you'd expect to be there.

They don't need the dogs but they'll fight to the bitter end for them. Why? Because they always have to fight. Try and tell them that Toblerones are lethal and they'll suddenly be marching in support of them. I'm also surprised that they managed to find the time to make the placards after a long week of working 9-5.

Not 3 inches of penis between them.