Dangerous dogs- Lets have some discussion

[LS]

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source ... WBd5o9Uqzg
Hope this will link if not I will find another one

Consultation Document
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consu ... rous-dogs/

[Angela Thompson]

Just had a look on the link. I'm sure the discussion will rumble on and on.

I've lots of questions to ask as i'm sure other people do too.

1) What exactly is a dangerous dog?
2) Don't all dogs have the potential to be dangerous in the wrong hands?
3) Having got all 3 of my dogs already insured and microchipped, what difference will this make to stop a dog biting/attacking somebody?
4) If a dog bites and intruder on our own property, will the new law make me liable to prosecution?

Angela

[Janinem]

Compulsory microchipping will not make any difference really, it will tell who the dog was registered too, but if the person moves and does not update details the chip is virtually useless. We have had lost dogs at work and none of the contacts are up to date, or the owner has sold the dog and could not care less where it went etc.
In Australia a dangerous dogs is one who attacks/bites another person or animal, one who rushes at someone and they lodge a complaint against it, one who worries someone, i.e. If my dogs bark at someone from inside my premises and the person is walking past the house at the time and it gives them a fright and they lodge a complaint.
If someone breaks into my home and the dogs bit the intruder, he can sue me and my dogs be put down. How stupid is that.
Angela, I can only give you my opinion on your questions.
A dangerous person makes a dangerous dog, regardless of breed or intention. When I say dangerous person, I dont just mean a young man or woman with attitude, they are bad enough, but many normal people who continually treat their little darlings like children and pamper them and let them get away with blue murder are also responsible. Dogs need to be taught boundaries, just like children, and many of the dogs at work who will bite faster than anything are these spoilt brat fluffy crossbred beasts. I look at these dogs and really dispair, these are more than capable of biting a child but because they are small they are not really looked on as dangerous.
Then we have all these wonderful breeders around the world who seem to think there is money in breeding dogs, there is for them, they dont care what they breed and certainly not who they sell to. They dont put any money into the dogs except for food and bang out litter after litter. Especially bigger dogs, who seem to be mastiffs but look nothing like mastiffs I know.
For instance, just this week at work, woman with black puppy/white on chest, in for its first vaccination, she has had it since it was five weeks old. I asked her what breed, she told me it was a cross between a mastiff and ridgeback, I told her it was not, could not be because of the colour, she insisted it was, father was a black and white mastiff and the mother was a black ridgeback. OK, I tried to explain to her that she had been told a lot of crap to put it bluntly, (I am classed as the vet nurse from hell sometimes), she told me that this man has been breeding for 10 years and these parents are purebred dogs, apparently this made her pup purebed as well, sigh, I told her I have been involved with mastiffs for 30 years and he is full of it and she had been taken for a ride. I also told her that this upsets me because IF her dog goes and bites someone down the track, the breeder will get off scot free, she will probably get a fine, the dog will die, and the headline will blame the MASTIFF, as usual. Unbelievable, she does not care, breeder got his money because idiots like her are more abundant than people who put in the hard yards and research what they want. Newspapers continue to sell potentially dangerous dogs, pet shops are no better, the LAW here says that ALL DOGS/PUPPIES must be microchipped now before sale, not happening, not being enforced so what do they expect this to do.
Government officials jump up and down and cry ban the breed etc, instead of really getting someone in to sit and think about it and come up with some good ideas and actually do something instead of blanket bans and laws that will only affect responsible people.
After the Port Arthur shooting here many years ago, guns were banned, there was an amnesty and people were told they were no longer allowed to own any automatic weapon, there was a big buy back from the government, of course all the law abiding people did what they were told and handed in their weapons, in reality, these are not the people who would go and shoot someone are they? Do they honestly think that all the "baddies" handed theirs in, hell, they were not legal weapons in the first place, did they care that it was all of sudden against the law to have them, of course not, they still have theirs, all it did was disarm harmless people. It is the same with dogs, pitbulls are illegal, the amount of Am. Staffs and Staffie crosses around now is incredible, they are all pitbulls but it is a case of prove it. They are not going to stop dangerous dogs or owners unless they actually do something about it.
Sorry, been on a tangent and going off. I just hate this, thats all. I hate the injustice given to breeds, I hate the fact that my dogs can be blamed and punished for something they dont do, I hate the fact that I can be punished and my friends who care as much as me can be punished for something we have not done. Years and years of work can be totally destroyed by one headline and one over reaction by some dim government official with no idea.
Janine.

[shontelle1985]

I couldn't agree with you more. I do not yet own a Mastiff (Am currently looking at some of the dogs for rescue via the OEMC) but I have done my homework and thoroughly researched the breed. I know what owning a Mastiff entails and all the hard work involved. I want to rescue a Mastiff, give a dog a second chance, but if I decided to buy one, it would be from a reliable, reputable breeder, and KC registered. I would only buy one if I could see both parents and see that the pups were cared for and in good condition. I would of course want to have it checked by my vet too. If all buyers would take the same steps, instead of just rushing into it, being impatient and swallowing whatever crap they are told, there probably wouldn't be so big a problem. Anyone who has researched this breed knows that they are loving and very gentle, not prone to attacking without major provocation. It makes me sick that an entire breed gets a bad rap because of the mistakes made by owners who either don't have a clue how to raise a dog, or are just in it for profit and raise it badly and/or cruelly. It is going to get to the stage soon where 'Mastiff types' are banned completely and that would be an awful and needless loss.

[Mastiff]

1) What exactly is a dangerous dog?
The 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act banned ownership of four types: the pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa, the dogo Argentino and the fila Brasileiro.
It also gave police powers to deal with any dogs, of whatever breed, that became out of control in a public place - with destruction of the animal the ultimate sanction.
There are 3 breeds listed here that I have never been aware of seeing, there was a Tosa in this area it was returned to I think America when the regulation came out.
Last night on the news it was announced that they would not be bringing in third party insurance as it would penalise the caring breeders. Most house insurance in the UK give some cover we belong to an organisation which covers us for third party.
I will come back on this subject, I am in favour of DNA microchipping and health testing. Its the OWNERS not the dogs that should penalised. Just look at that dog on the front of the website, this should have every breeder cringing.
Do fill in the DEFRA questionaire don't just sit back.
Proper thought needs to go into this as too much compulsion and people won't bother, I am appauled at the amount of vaccinations vets seem to think we should pour into our animals.
Nowadays we see CH parented mastiffs on the internet in amongst the 'doodle' breeds which seem to be everywhere and the celebrities don't help.

[Angela Thompson]

We went to Crufts on Thursday to exhibit our bitch and then again on Saturday when we went on the Discover Dogs stand with our bitch and dog.

There were lots of questions: the usual kind of stuff, how much do they weigh, how much do they eat, how far do they walk each day, what kind of temperament. The only negative comment we heard all afternoon was from a woman who said she had owned 3 or 4 Mastiffs which had all been aggressive. When we explained to her that we believe in early socialisation is an asset the woman replied that we were talking absolute rubbish. I could understand from her whole attitude that it was no wonder her dogs had the same problem.

On a whole, most people who came to chat were genuinely interested in the breed, and commented on how calm, cool and relaxed they all were.

[Gix]

Hello everyone.
Everytime this subject appears in the news one worries what the implications might be both for our breed and the other much maligned breeds such as Staffordshires.
The trouble now and the biggest threat to the image of our breed are the large number of fringe or backstreet breeders who are indulging in the crossing of Pit bull type dogs with the various Mastiff types.
The Internet has altered so many things and one only has to do a search to see how many puppies are bred that are crosses or multiple crosses.
Of most concern is that so often these crosses are described as 'Mastiff' crosses when usually there is no 'English' Mastiff in them, frequently it is Neopolitan Mastiff. The problem being when there is an incident that hits the headlines, the affix of the name Mastiff is enough to cast a shadow on all the mastiff types, our own included.
This latest case in the news headlines of the laddie who was stabbed after being attacked by so called 'weapon' dogs typifies our problem. One television news channel described 'Tyson'........(why are they always called Tyson?) as "a Mastiff Cross".........he had apparently Bull Mastiff in him.
The threat to the image of our breed are the backstreet dogs owned by irresponsible and sometimes criminal people.
As I see it, the only hope of suppressing this kind of fringe activity that threatens to drag the pure breeds into disrepute, is for local authorities to crack down in their respective areas, although that could be a cause for concern to some as when this happens you can be sure the innocent and genuine people will be adversely affected and many of the undesirables will still breeze on regardless. We have seen that happen in the past with Puppy farms and the like.
That was one of the concerns with this latest legislation proposing enforced insurance and tracking etc. Many observers pointed out that it would only be the genuine owners who would comply, whilst the disreputable element would simply ignore it.
That proposed legislation has been withdrawn I believe.........it wouldn't have anything to do with the looming election would it?? :)

good wishes,
Graham.

[LS]

Having seen on a puppies for sale site which includes our breed of the 11 adverts 9 were for mongrels(crossbreds) one parent having mastiff in their name by clicking a symbol you were linked to the much advertised KC Accredited Breeders Sysytem which was on every advert. Totally misleading, our gentle breed gets linked in ignorance so often, one of the reasons I like to encorage posting photographs they can be seen for what they are 'gentle giants' It must not be forgotten however they are large dogs and a flick of the tail can knock someone over, so never leave children unattended with large dogs.
LS

[paul.oconnor]

Only just read this thread and this is a favourite topic of mine. I agree with a lot of what has already been posted but I'll still get on my high horse.

First of all the insurance proposals that were thankfully scrapped - at the end of the day responsible owners who socialise their dogs will be penalised. People who want their dogs to be aggressive will never bother insuring them in the first place. Just the same way as dog fighting rings continue to exist despite being illegal.

Secondly, I think the current concept of a 'dangerous dog' needs addressing. Every dog only reacts to the leadership it has been given. We need to rephrase to 'dangerous owners'.

I do not agree with the blanket banning of breeds - look to America where fantastic work has been done with Pit Bulls. I have personally owned a couple of dogs that have been 'written off' in the past and I was sucessful in giving the right training to make them normal, healthy dogs again.

Pits got a bad name for themselves after they became the dog of choice for idiots who wanted aggressive animals. This became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Idiots are now moving onto Staffordshire Bull Terriers which are now also getting a bad name for themselves. If all of the irresponsible owners decided tomorrow that toy poodles were the new 'weapon dog' then given a few years the uneducated will be calling for that breed to be banned, too.

What I'd like to see is the licence introduced. To get the licence people should have to have some kind of training - similar to driving a car (another potentially fatal part of life). After a minimum number of say 20 lessons an exam should be sat and provided the student achieves a suitable mark they will receive their licence.

The licence does 2 things. First of all it ensures everybody has had the same level of education before being able to own a dog. Secondly, it provides a tangible mechanism for the police to check up on people.

Granted, the responsible owners will have to pay out as well but police will be able to spot check anybody to see if they have a licence. If not, they have the dog taken away and are sent to prison for a mandatory minimum term as well as being banned from owning dogs for life. This way the ones who would typically avoid 'requirements' are able to be punished and the scheme itself will be self-funding.