United Future

Posted at 2007-08-16 10:18:36.24. Permalink.

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

Posted at 2007-08-16 14:03:48.005. Permalink.

What's wrong with requiring muzzles?

Posted at 2007-08-16 16:16:08.078. Permalink.

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 at 2007-08-16 23:29:14.506. Permalink.

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 at 2007-08-17 12:43:35.202. Permalink.

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

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

Posted at 2007-08-30 14:53:39.583. Permalink.

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 at 2007-08-30 15:01:17.431. Permalink.

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 at 2007-09-03 16:44:24.323. Permalink.

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 at 2007-11-14 13:50:48.936. Permalink.

.

Posted at 2007-11-19 21:35:18.25. Permalink.

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 at 2008-01-31 22:19:37.597. Permalink.

I 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 at 2008-01-31 22:35:50.441. Permalink.

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 at 2008-02-01 20:43:04.324. Permalink.

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.
Today 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.

Posted at 2008-12-12 03:12:49.381. Permalink.

I think it can't be denied that all dogs are capable of loyalty and affection. The problem with some breeds of dog is that they don't take kindly to strangers. And from what I have seen and heard, it seems that dogs that are cross breeds seem to be more aggressive, probably why they were used as fighting dogs. I'm no expert though.

What I do know is that I have had a golden retriever for the last 10 years, and she is the nicest animal I have ever come to know.

Posted at 2009-08-09 11:42:30.008. Permalink.

I think all dogs have the potential to be dangerous just like any animal that we choose to own we use to have a horse that bites and im sure that where not the only ones and a cat that scratches has the potential to blind a baby for life and yet we as owners of these animals choose to move on with our lifes. We do what we can as responsible owners to ensure that our animals will not harm anyone BUT it happens. I am a Dogo lover that cant import a dogo to New Zealand because of this law. I have researched and researched on the Dogo and haveint found a reported incident or attack here in New Zealand it seems that they have been banned on there reputation and this dog wasint even breed to fight the where breed for hunting big game the Idea was to breed a super dog that would come away from the triditional fighting to be a family dog that would protect its family and could adapt to any situation. I have found in my research that the dogo could hunt pig and 2hours later they are playing with the children in the back yard and if you want the prof then research like I have. I have never seen in a pig hunting dog that could adapt just like that. To finish I would like anyone that could help me find information on how to lift the ban on the Dogo here in New Zealand so we dog lovers can enjoy these awsome creatures.

Posted at 2010-02-17 13:09:54.532. Permalink.

I will punch you in the balls!!!

Posted at 2010-02-17 13:14:13.259. Permalink.

I'm a gangster, becuase of this reason I fell that I must punch you in the balls. English

Posted at 2010-02-17 13:15:13.343. Permalink.

Makr Kennard!

Posted at 2010-02-17 13:15:42.344. Permalink.

Kate Redpath

Posted at 2010-05-15 17:08:34.041. Permalink.

I think it is pointless to have a 'dangerous breed' list.
It would make more sense to have a 'dangerous' or 'incapable' owner list.

The breeds currently on the list are not the most dangerous, if by being dangerous it is meant the most likely to bite. If that were so you would see Husky, Labrador, German Shepherd, Blue Heeler, Fox Terrier on the list. The dogs currently on the list however certainly are among the most powerful. But this does not make them dangerous and it would be misleading to label them as such.

Power dogs like the various Mastiffs were bred to be stoic and fearless and to bite only when ordered to or necessary. Some were bred to hunt. Anyone who hunts knows that a dog that tears your hunt to pieces is a nuisance so they are bred to make a clean bite.

A dog like the Husky, Blue Heeler, Collie, Foxy were bred to herd stock and to nip at them to do the job well. Labradors are known to bite out of fear as too are German Shepherds. Ask a protection dog trainer and he will most likely prefer the Malinois over the G. Shepherd for its more stoic personality and powerful bite whilst still being smaller and more agile.

I believe the answer lies in people owning a dog that suits them and their purpose, and their ability to capably own that dog. Sadly not everyone makes the correct decision when deciding to own a dog.