Have Your Say – Polls
We understand clearly that the only reason for our existence is to represent the voice of the people in our parliament. We believe that any party that is not constantly in touch with the views of the people is simply not doing its job. In this space you can read what others think on key issues, and you can let us know your views.
Add your comment
The only dog of mine that I could never trust completely was a Rhodesian Ridgeback cross.He was so affectionate with us but when children were around,we had to shut him away and I had to watch him all the time with my kittens.99% of the time he could be trusted but occasionally you could see this look in his eyes,like a wolfs,which meant,hide your kittens.
Posted by carol bennett 2008-02-01 20:43:04.324Today those kittens are elderly cats and we have two Hunterway-Collie cross dogs who are as placid as can be and terrified of the cats.
In our house it's the cats who need the muzzles.
What dogs should be on the dangerous dogs list?
I'm not quite sure.I do know of a Corgi and a Springer Spaniel who attacked their owners.Yet neither of these breeds are considered dangerous.
Pit bulls are the choice of dangerous people.Maybe that's where their reputation comes from.
To continue, I think that the best way to solve the problem of dangerous dogs is to have a compulsory 'temperament test' that all dogs have to undergo as part of their registration. That way any dog that fails the test, regardless of breed, should be muzzled in public by law. By doing this owners would be encouraged to put more effort into training and socialization, and it would be a lot safer.
Another thing I would just like to mention is how do we label some breeds dangerous and not others? I would just like to mention for an example is the ever so cute and cuddly 'Rolly Dog' or Shar Pei. These dogs were actually originally breed as fighting dogs in China and have what is known as a 'lock jaw'. What this means is that when they bite they are able to 'lock' their jaw muscles in place, much the same way as a horse locks its leg muscles so it can sleep on its feet. Shar Pei's are the only breed able to do this. Pit Bulls don't have this mechanism - they just have incredibly strong jaw muscles, but they cant lock them. At least with a pitty you have a chance of being able to get one off.
Why then, is the Shar Pei not on the dangerous dogs list then? Lets face it; it comes down to the owner, not the dog.
Posted by E. Speeden 2008-01-31 22:35:50.441I strongly believe that any dog is only as dangerous as its owner allows it to be and NO dog is inherently vicious. In fact as many as 52 breeds of dog have been responsible for attacks on people worldwide.
It is definitely owners that are the problem, not the dogs. Any breed, if not trained or socialised properly, has the potential to be 'dangerous'. The only problem with pit bulls is that when they do bite they have the potential to do a lot more damage than other breeds because their jaws are so strong. These dogs are also popular with the wrong types of people and it is a well known fact that many of these unfortunate creatures have criminal and abusive owners. These thugs just a get a dog for its looks and reputation and to make themselves look good to their peers - the dog is often nothing more to them but a piece of property! As a result, the dog receives NO PROPER SOCIALISATION OR TRAINING, and would most likely be encouraged to act aggressively.
I have worked at the SPCA before and personally some of the nicest dogs that I have come across have been the pit bull mixes and cross breeds. Unfortunately some of the nicest natured dogs aren�t even looked at just because they have a bit of staffy or pitty in them.
Posted by E. Speeden 2008-01-31 22:19:37.597YES 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�
Posted by Osborne Dean 2007-11-19 21:35:18.25I have even seen one of the teenage school girls (in this extremely over crowed house) with a glass P pipe in her mouth
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 13:50:48.936PS..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 16:44:24.323In 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!
Posted by Ian Mc Innes 2007-08-30 15:01:17.431I 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.
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 14:53:39.583I 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 12:43:35.202I 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