Have Your Say:

• YES I SAY BAN THESE BREEDS

  My neighbours have a Once Where Warriors attitude to life- and are well known by the Police, council, child youth & family as one of the biggest crime families in Auckland.
  They openly defy dog bylaws keeping 2 Pit Bulls (the older dog is left to roam the streets and the younger dog is normally chained to the side of the house) Dog control have received a great many complaints about the dogs- but because no one has been attacked by them, they have not got the authority to take them a way and destroy them. The best they can do is to fine the owner $200 for allowing the dog to roam the road. (The last time the owner was fined my lawn mower was stolen in the same week- and I know dam well it was in reprisal for complaining to Dog Control)

  -By the way the dog is still out on the street!

  WHAT�S MORE I know that nearly every adult in the family are on serious drugs including�P�
  
  I have even seen one of the teenage school girls (in this extremely over crowed house) with a glass P pipe in her mouth

  Posted by Osborne Dean 2007-11-19 21:35:18.25

• Requiring anything isn't really addressing the issue. I know both here and in Australia there are a large number of dog owners who do not register or micro chip their dogs.

  I would consider compulsory education, muzzling and other restrictions on dog ownership will only allow officials to remove dogs from their owners, however that is not enough to address the actual issue while negatively affecting responsible dog owners such as myself.

  I'm all for banning certain dog breeds however even then I'm not sure if you will really solve the problem. You can train a German Shepard to be a fighting dog if you wanted to, so should you ban German Shepards? I hope not, I loved my German Shepard I owned while I was a child.

  Dalmations are also noted as being dangerous in some countries. So are boxers.

  Posted by Kaine Harris 2007-11-14 13:50:48.936

• PS..Just in case you might have missed a point. I'm not advocating all dogs have to be pedigrees in the future. But if we 'returned to breeding 'pedigree' dogs for a time' - remember a dog usually lives about 10 years, then we could get the 'blood pool & breed lines' very well cemented during that period of time if neutering could be allowed to run its cause & do its work. The likes of Councils would have their hands full monitoring & implementing such. This could remove all the possibly dangerous cross breeds. Once the present generation of dangerous cross breeds has died out then the 'cross breed' dilemma is removed with dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs disappearing via strong policies to achieve this. We'd then know what we have in the country is well bred stock. The likes of Labra-doodles, a recent crossing of Labradors crossed with poodles & the like are hardly 'the dangerous' breeds causing the problems so common sense would need to prevail. Some crossing of dog breeds brings about species with advanced capacities. The aim is to reduce & eradicate potential or actual dangerous cross breeds, enhance the capacity of sound working class dogs for farmers, The Police etc & develop the 'friendly' nature of the more common household pets for the safety & enjoyment of all

  Posted by Ian Mc Innes 2007-09-03 16:44:24.323

• In assessing actual breeds look at what the breeds were originally designed for & to do what. Some were bred for fighting. Some have all sorts of instincts. The German Shepherd a sheep dog. A well bred & well 'nurtured' one will protect those around it as an off shoot of its inbuilt instinct to protect a herd of sheep. Hence due to its intelligence it can be utilised at many levels including Guide dogs. Any poorly socialised dog will bite or flite!
  I often say that if 1 crossed a GSD with an Irish Setter it won't know whether to chase the 'crook' or the 'bird'. My suggestion is to continue to desex all stock other than pedigree stock to minimise 'all' mixed breeding & desist from breeding stock with essential fighting instincts. I'm not saying everyone should have to pay $600 for a pedigree dog. I am saying minimising any inter-breeding & understanding what dogs were originally bred specifically for epitomises why they were originally owned & how better they can be utilised in society for the betterment & safety of all.

  Posted by Ian Mc Innes 2007-08-30 15:01:17.431

• Mmmm. Dogs. People love 'em or hate 'em. This is an attempt to put a short note on the sight as a longer one wasn't being accepted.

  Posted by Ian Mc Innes 2007-08-30 14:53:39.583

• I found an interesting wikipedia article relating to the UK experience in this area:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Dogs_Act_1991

  Posted by Joe Burton 2007-08-17 12:43:35.202

• I think that Joe's right - the question is how do you decide which breeds are dangerous?

  In my experience (which is limited I admit) the way the dogs are treated and trained has more impact than the breed itself.

  Maybe we should be looking at laws to educate and control dog owners?

  Posted by Damian Light 2007-08-16 23:29:14.506

• How do you define 'dangerous dog breeds' seems to be the obvious question that flows from this. Is it provable that certain breeds are prone to violence? It seems fairly clear that they are but I don't know if there is a scientific basis for this. Does it also have to do with how dogs are treated by their owners, how they are trained? Nature or Nurture? Does that debate apply to our canine friends too? :)

  Posted by Joe Burton 2007-08-16 16:16:08.078

• What's wrong with requiring muzzles?

  Posted by John Pickering 2007-08-16 14:03:48.005

• I'm appearing on Willie Jackson's Eye to Eye programme this Saturday morning on this subject. Peter Dunne

  Posted by Peter Dunne 2007-08-16 10:18:36.24