Can Some Dogs Just Be Mean?

[Santo66]

It's always the owners fault when a dog is mismanaged and put in a position to bite someone, however some dogs and some breeds need a higher level of management than others. There are plenty of absolute moron owners who allow good stable dogs to run around the street that cause no harm to anyone, but a moron owner of a mean dog let out onto the street is going to bite someone. What's the difference, both owners are moron irresponsibles, one dog bites the other doesn't why is that?

[Wobbly]

What I've gotten from a scan of some posts is that people do support BSL. Well we have BSL, yet people are still being maimed and killed by dogs in alarming numbers. BSL doesn't work, it's unenforeceable and ineffective, maulings like this one are pretty clear evidence of that.

Imagine if APBTs etc were made legal. People could acquire the breed from responsible, registered breeders instead of the BYBs who are currently the only option. Were APBTs legal, they would be eligible for conformation shows, some lines could be bred for pet temperament and conformation showing, with lower drive, and higher arousal thresholds, great for suburban families. Other lines would be bred for work (by which I mean sports like weight pull), these pups, being of working temperament must be homed far more carefully, only to people capable and dedicated enough to meet their rather demanding management requirements. The only way to ensure the latter are being homed appropriately is to make them legal so that the responsibility is taken out of the hands of BYB cowboys and put in the hands of responsible, registered breeders whose practices are subject to scrutiny by regulatory bodies.

Supplement the responsible breeding and homing of pups (which can only occur is BSL is repealed) with education programs, strict enforcement of leash and containment laws, jail for owners of dogswho maim people, and we really would have the beginnings of legislation that really would be effective in reducing the occurrence of horrific maulings.

Repealing BSL would open the way for sensible, effective legislation.

Inez (and others who are pro BSL) are vociferously against repealing BSL. Ergo Inez (and co.) are vociferously opposed to any move towards enacting sensible legislative efforts to curb the maulings. The only logical conclusion is that Inez and other supporters of BSL support the status quo - these regular and savage maulings.

[Rosetta]

I have owned, bred & shown dogs for over 50 years & I am sick to death of humans blaming dogs instead of owners. :

Read the article, mantis. It explains why it is not the dogs or the owners. It's BOTH. :

You know what really makes me mad? People grossly oversimplifying complex issues and then developing some kind of fierce belief in the oversimplification. Having owned, bred and shown dogs for 50 years means nothing if you can't grasp the complexity of fairly key issues like temperament.

Unfortunately I suspect Mantis is one of the incapable of asimilating what is in that article. The most unfortunate part about that is they are not alone in this.

In 50 years of owning dogs I gather mantis hasnt made the mistake of leaving 3 or more of their dogs running together and come home to find one of her dogs had been killed by its 'friends'. I know my sister is still in shock over her two 9 month old cavalier puppies killing the 13 year old chihuahua they grew up with. She still cant believe they ran to her, tails wagging to greet her with no idea they had done anything wrong.

DOGS WILL AND DO KILL. Things like this do happen. Not often, maybe thats why its so shocking when it does. Like my sister we humans will never know why? They have absolutely no idea of human morals or mores.

Neither are dog agressive, both are typical adoring loving cavalier puppies. What triggered what the vet said is normal pack behaviour if a fight starts no one will ever know. He did not believe they should be put down, time seems to be bearing this out.

What happened was almost a year ago now and my sister is still trying to understand why, neither have shown any sign of agression to any other dog or each other since.

Dogs are canis familiaris no matter how cute and cuddly the term 'fur child' feels, you have a cute bundle of instincts of the ages, you actually know just about nothing about.

A lady was asked to look after her sons three huskies while he was away for the weekend, the next day two of them killed the third. they all grew up together and were litter mates.

It isnt a rule, well not yet is it? That to like/love a dog you are not allowed to be realistic and know their strengths and their weaknessnes?

actually I think the actual title of the thread is a mistake " Can Some Dogs Just Be Mean? "

Dogs have no such concept, only people .

I find that really shocking. Your poor sister and poor little chi I would never have believed Cavs were capable of that - thats an eye opener!

[inez]

What I've gotten from a scan of some posts is that people do support BSL. Well we have BSL, yet people are still being maimed and killed by dogs in alarming numbers. BSL doesn't work, it's unenforeceable and ineffective, maulings like this one are pretty clear evidence of that.

Imagine if APBTs etc were made legal. People could acquire the breed from responsible, registered breeders instead of the BYBs who are currently the only option. Were APBTs legal, they would be eligible for conformation shows, some lines could be bred for pet temperament and conformation showing, with lower drive, and higher arousal thresholds, great for suburban families. Other lines would be bred for work (by which I mean sports like weight pull), these pups, being of working temperament must be homed far more carefully, only to people capable and dedicated enough to meet their rather demanding management requirements. The only way to ensure the latter are being homed appropriately is to make them legal so that the responsibility is taken out of the hands of BYB cowboys and put in the hands of responsible, registered breeders whose practices are subject to scrutiny by regulatory bodies.

Supplement the responsible breeding and homing of pups (which can only occur is BSL is repealed) with education programs, strict enforcement of leash and containment laws, jail for owners of dogswho maim people, and we really would have the beginnings of legislation that really would be effective in reducing the occurrence of horrific maulings.

Repealing BSL would open the way for sensible, effective legislation.

Inez (and others who are pro BSL) are vociferously against repealing BSL. Ergo Inez (and co.) are vociferously opposed to any move towards enacting sensible legislative efforts to curb the maulings. The only logical conclusion is that Inez and other supporters of BSL support the status quo - these regular and savage maulings.

You are wrong. I agree wholeheartedly with you.

All I want is the owners of these dogs to be as responsible for theirs as we are for ours.

NONE of my dogs have ever been allowed to roam. I do not believe it is safe for either my dogs or fair for anyone to be confronted with a strange dog be it running in front of their car and causing an accident, or going into their property or risking their stock may be frightened or wost case attacked or cause fear of attack.

It is absolutely infuriating to come home and find someone elses are on my property, chasing my stock or attempting to attack my dogs.

We shouldnt have to wake up to the screeaming of our neighbours sheep or goats being torn to pieces, to find a foal or a calf mauled through no fault of its own. Of course in surberbia its children, pets and in this latest tragedy that poor jogger.

If I and my friends can be responsible for our animals WHY on earth cant others be just the same?

If they really cared for their dogs regardless of whether its a toy or a giant breed. It belongs AT HOME and under supervision.

What is really needed is strong enough laws that people who dont can be prosecuted with more than a dont be naughty again.

Banned for life from ever owing one again if they repeat offend.

As for the sickos that get their kicks when they run down working dogs any chance they get on roadsides moving their owners stock or in the case of the poor husky pup shoot it as its happlily running to them? At least that one has had his guns confiscated. But many just use their cars, they should still be held to account if their number plate can be read.

It wont ever stop these things happening, murders still happen, but any reduction possible would be at least a cause for celebration.

Knowing the potential of your chosen breed and and making sure accidents cant happen is the best start surely?

Edited May 31, 2013 by inez

[Wobbly]

So you aren't pro BSL?

[inez]

I have owned, bred & shown dogs for over 50 years & I am sick to death of humans blaming dogs instead of owners. :

Read the article, mantis. It explains why it is not the dogs or the owners. It's BOTH. :

You know what really makes me mad? People grossly oversimplifying complex issues and then developing some kind of fierce belief in the oversimplification. Having owned, bred and shown dogs for 50 years means nothing if you can't grasp the complexity of fairly key issues like temperament.

Unfortunately I suspect Mantis is one of the incapable of asimilating what is in that article. The most unfortunate part about that is they are not alone in this.

In 50 years of owning dogs I gather mantis hasnt made the mistake of leaving 3 or more of their dogs running together and come home to find one of her dogs had been killed by its 'friends'. I know my sister is still in shock over her two 9 month old cavalier puppies killing the 13 year old chihuahua they grew up with. She still cant believe they ran to her, tails wagging to greet her with no idea they had done anything wrong.

DOGS WILL AND DO KILL. Things like this do happen. Not often, maybe thats why its so shocking when it does. Like my sister we humans will never know why? They have absolutely no idea of human morals or mores.

Neither are dog agressive, both are typical adoring loving cavalier puppies. What triggered what the vet said is normal pack behaviour if a fight starts no one will ever know. He did not believe they should be put down, time seems to be bearing this out.

What happened was almost a year ago now and my sister is still trying to understand why, neither have shown any sign of agression to any other dog or each other since.

Dogs are canis familiaris no matter how cute and cuddly the term 'fur child' feels, you have a cute bundle of instincts of the ages, you actually know just about nothing about.

A lady was asked to look after her sons three huskies while he was away for the weekend, the next day two of them killed the third. they all grew up together and were litter mates.

It isnt a rule, well not yet is it? That to like/love a dog you are not allowed to be realistic and know their strengths and their weaknessnes?

actually I think the actual title of the thread is a mistake " Can Some Dogs Just Be Mean? "

Dogs have no such concept, only people .

I find that really shocking. Your poor sister and poor little chi I would never have believed Cavs were capable of that - thats an eye opener!

Who would. As her vet said, "doesnt matter what the breed, more than two dogs is a pack, pack behaviour is instinct from the ages regardless of breed".

The implications are more than a little scarey isnt it?

Our "fur kids" are just as capable of emulating the children in "Lord of the Flies". Thanks to their teeth and insticts much more capable of kiling in the worst case scenario. Anyone watching a group of unsupervised children can see some awful bullying behaviour, its adults who need to be watching to interfere and train them it is not acceptable.

I well remember a 2 year old taking the hand of the 18 month sitting beside him and biting her fingers to the bone before he could be made to let go.

If lack of supervision in children can result in such horrific injuries the problem is no less possible in dogs is it?

Somehow though even in the worst possible case scenario, if that poor jogger in Liverpool had been attacked by three cavaliers he would not be in hospital with the horrific injuries he does have, They were inflicted by a breed bred for just that purpose, Cavs dont have the size, weight or abilty to inflict so much damage.

A irrsponsible cav owner or any toy breed, is still a darnned nusicance, an irrisponsible big hunting and fighting breed owner is a rescipe for disaster.

Edited June 1, 2013 by inez

[Wobbly]

What I've gotten from a scan of some posts is that people do support BSL. Well we have BSL, yet people are still being maimed and killed by dogs in alarming numbers. BSL doesn't work, it's unenforeceable and ineffective, maulings like this one are pretty clear evidence of that.

Imagine if APBTs etc were made legal. People could acquire the breed from responsible, registered breeders instead of the BYBs who are currently the only option. Were APBTs legal, they would be eligible for conformation shows, some lines could be bred for pet temperament and conformation showing, with lower drive, and higher arousal thresholds, great for suburban families. Other lines would be bred for work (by which I mean sports like weight pull), these pups, being of working temperament must be homed far more carefully, only to people capable and dedicated enough to meet their rather demanding management requirements. The only way to ensure the latter are being homed appropriately is to make them legal so that the responsibility is taken out of the hands of BYB cowboys and put in the hands of responsible, registered breeders whose practices are subject to scrutiny by regulatory bodies.

Supplement the responsible breeding and homing of pups (which can only occur is BSL is repealed) with education programs, strict enforcement of leash and containment laws, jail for owners of dogswho maim people, and we really would have the beginnings of legislation that really would be effective in reducing the occurrence of horrific maulings.

Repealing BSL would open the way for sensible, effective legislation.

Inez (and others who are pro BSL) are vociferously against repealing BSL. Ergo Inez (and co.) are vociferously opposed to any move towards enacting sensible legislative efforts to curb the maulings. The only logical conclusion is that Inez and other supporters of BSL support the status quo - these regular and savage maulings.

You are wrong. I agree wholeheartedly with you.

All I want is the owners of these dogs to be as responsible for theirs as we are for ours.

NONE of my dogs have ever been allowed to roam. I do not believe it is safe for either my dogs or fair for anyone to be confronted with a strange dog be it running in front of their car and causing an accident, or going into their property or risking their stock may be frightened or wost case attacked or cause fear of attack.

It is absolutely infuriating to come home and find someone elses are on my property, chasing my stock or attempting to attack my dogs.

We shouldnt have to wake up to the screeaming of our neighbours sheep or goats being torn to pieces, to find a foal or a calf mauled through no fault of its own. Of course in surberbia its children, pets and in this latest tragedy that poor jogger.

If I and my friends can be responsible for our animals WHY on earth cant others be just the same?

If they really cared for their dogs regardless of whether its a toy or a giant breed. It belongs AT HOME and under supervision.

What is really needed is strong enough laws that people who dont can be prosecuted with more than a dont be naughty again.

Banned for life from ever owing one again if they repeat offend.

As for the sickos that get their kicks when they run down working dogs any chance they get on roadsides moving their owners stock or in the case of the poor husky pup shoot it as its happlily running to them? At least that one has had his guns confiscated. But many just use their cars, they should still be held to account if their number plate can be read.

It wont ever stop these things happening, murders still happen, but any reduction possible would be at least a cause for celebration.

Knowing the potential of your chosen breed and and making sure accidents cant happen is the best start surely?

Feel the need to quote to account for the retrospective editing.

This post implies that you don't support BSL, however every other post you've written implies you do support BSL, which is it?

[huski]

Some dogs require a higher level of management than others and its up to owners to be responsible for making sure their dogs are appropriately and safely managed. It would be naive to think all dogs are created equal.

[persephone]

I

know my sister is still in shock over her two 9 month old cavalier puppies killing the 13 year old chihuahua they grew up with. She still cant believe they ran to her, tails wagging to greet her with no idea they had done anything wrong.

<br style="color: rgb(70, 85, 132); font-family: verdana, tahoma, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(250, 252, 254);">

..and they had not done anything "wrong" in their doggy minds.

often old dogs are attacked killed due to their odd body language , either because of a seizure or collapse , or failure to respond appropriately to other dogs because of failing eyesight/hearing.

I was once witness to several 5-6 mth old labs who pretty much disembowelled one of their own .....

It does happen - they are DOGS , with their own codes of behaviour .

[inez]

Some dogs require a higher level of management than others and its up to owners to be responsible for making sure their dogs are appropriately and safely managed. It would be naive to think all dogs are created equal.

There are an awful lot of naive people around, mores the pity.

[Wobbly]

Inez, are you pro BSL or anti BSL?

You are one of the most prolific posters on the subject, yet despite all your noise it's still unclear to me where you stand on the issue. Please respond, I am interested. A simple statement of "Yes, I support BSL" or "no, I don't support BSL" would be more than adequate. I'm only asking 4 or 5 words from you for clrification, not a big ask given your usual volubility on the subject.

[BlackJaq]

What makes a dog dangerous to people is a combination of genetics, socialisation (or lack of it) and environment

Here's what Karen Delise (author of Fatal Dog Attacks) has to say on the issue:

Today's media is filled with sensational headlines of dog attacks. Routinely quoted in these newspaper accounts are dated statistics from the Centers for Disease Control. The last CDC study released documented which breeds of dogs caused the most human fatalities from 1979 through 1998. While the CDC did an admirable job of studying fatal dog attacks, and went to great lengths to point out that irresponsible owners were the cause of most of these incidents, the media and lawmakers continue to use CDC statistics to substantiate claims that certain breeds of dogs are inherently more "vicious" than other breeds.

After reviewing over 431 cases of fatal dog attacks it is apparent there is no single factor that translates in a lethal encounter between a person and a dog(s). A fatal dog attack is always the culmination of past and present events that include: inherited and learned behaviors, genetics, breeding, socialization, function of the dog, physical condition and size of the dog, reproductive status of dog, popularity of breed, individual temperament, environmental stresses, owner responsibility, victim behavior, victim size and physical condition, timing and misfortune.

While many circumstances may contribute to a fatal dog attack, the following three factors appear to play a critical role in the display of

canine aggression towards humans;

Function of the dog - (Includes: dogs acquired for fighting, guarding/protection or image enhancement)

Owner responsibility - (Includes: dogs allowed to roam loose, chained dogs, dogs and/or children left unsupervised, dogs permitted or encouraged to behave

aggressively, animal neglect and/or abuse)

Reproductive status of dog - (Includes: unaltered males dogs, bitches with puppies, children coming between male dog and female dog in estrus)

It is necessary to emphasize that a fatal dog attack is an exceptionally rare event, yet many communities and cities believe that the solution to prevent severe and fatal dog attacks is to label, restrict or ban certain breeds of dogs as potentially dangerous. If the breed of dog was the primary or sole determining factor in a fatal dog attack, it would necessarily stand to reason that since there are literally millions of Rottweilers, Pit Bulls and German Shepherd Dogs in the United States, there would have to be countless more than an approximate 20-25 human fatalities per year. Since only an infinitesimal number of any breed is implicated in a human fatality, it is not only unreasonable to characterize this as a specific breed behavior by which judge an entire population of dogs, it also does little to prevent fatal or severe dog attacks as the real causes and events that contribute to a fatal attack are masked by the issue of breed and not seriously addressed.

From 1965 - 2001, there have been at least 36 different breeds/types of dog that have been involved in a fatal attack in the United States. (This number rises to at least 52 breeds/types when surveying fatal attacks worldwide). We are increasingly becoming a society that has less and less tolerance and understanding of natural canine behaviors. Breed specific behaviors that have been respected and selected for over the centuries are now often viewed as unnatural or dangerous. Dogs have throughout the centuries served as protectors and guardians of our property, possessions and families. Dogs have also been used for thousands of years to track, chase and hunt both large and small animals. These natural and selected-for canine behaviors seem to now eliciting fear, shock and a sense of distrust among many people.

There seems to be an ever growing expectation of a "behaviorally homogenized" dog - "Benji" in the shape of a Rottweiler. Breeds of dogs with greater protection instincts or an elevated prey-drive are often unfairly viewed as "aggressive or dangerous". No breed of dog is inherently vicious, as all breeds of dogs were created and are maintained exclusively to serve and co-exist with humans. [The problem exists not within the breed of dog, but rather within the owners that fail to control, supervise, maintain and properly train the breed of dog they choose to keep.

Any dog, regardless of breed, is only as dangerous as his/her owner allows it to be.

If you have a "mean" dog then it is your responsibility to keep it under complete control. "Accidents happen" simply isn't good enough.

Just thought this bears bumping again. I am amazed at the apparent lack of dog knowledge some posters here seem to display. Young dogs kill old dogs all the time. Breed is irrelevant here. Anybody who has old dogs and acquires young dogs should be well aware of this before leaving them together unsupervised.

I am also amazed that there are people on DOL who believe that a dog's behaviour is 100% a result of nurture when there are countless scientific articles on the subject. Even more amazing is that some people don't believe "their" breed or a certain breed who is small or a toy breed or whatever is incapable of aggression. They are all dogs. They are all capable. Their triggers and thresholds may vary but denying this is very naive as some other posters have pointed out. I believe many large breed owners probably have the same attitude ("my dog would never do that") and maybe that is what causes some of these incidents in the first place....

And while I do realize that it makes sense that large breeds are more capable of inflicting damage, I would like to say that small breeds not only have killed people by mauling them but can also cause accidents by chasing people and dogs in front of traffic etc, so saying they are harmless seems a little naive to me as well. All dogs need to be controlled and managed and even tiny dogs can be dangerous to very young children, so awareness of this is important, in my opinion, rather than spouting the old "small dogs do small damage" and possibly leaving less dog savvy people in the belief that leaving their young child alone with a dog is ok because it's small and can't do any damage.

Edited June 1, 2013 by BlackJaq

[inez]

What makes a dog dangerous to people is a combination of genetics, socialisation (or lack of it) and environment

Here's what Karen Delise (author of Fatal Dog Attacks) has to say on the issue:

Today's media is filled with sensational headlines of dog attacks. Routinely quoted in these newspaper accounts are dated statistics from the Centers for Disease Control. The last CDC study released documented which breeds of dogs caused the most human fatalities from 1979 through 1998. While the CDC did an admirable job of studying fatal dog attacks, and went to great lengths to point out that irresponsible owners were the cause of most of these incidents, the media and lawmakers continue to use CDC statistics to substantiate claims that certain breeds of dogs are inherently more "vicious" than other breeds.

After reviewing over 431 cases of fatal dog attacks it is apparent there is no single factor that translates in a lethal encounter between a person and a dog(s). A fatal dog attack is always the culmination of past and present events that include: inherited and learned behaviors, genetics, breeding, socialization, function of the dog, physical condition and size of the dog, reproductive status of dog, popularity of breed, individual temperament, environmental stresses, owner responsibility, victim behavior, victim size and physical condition, timing and misfortune.

While many circumstances may contribute to a fatal dog attack, the following three factors appear to play a critical role in the display of

canine aggression towards humans;

Function of the dog - (Includes: dogs acquired for fighting, guarding/protection or image enhancement)

Owner responsibility - (Includes: dogs allowed to roam loose, chained dogs, dogs and/or children left unsupervised, dogs permitted or encouraged to behave

aggressively, animal neglect and/or abuse)

Reproductive status of dog - (Includes: unaltered males dogs, bitches with puppies, children coming between male dog and female dog in estrus)

It is necessary to emphasize that a fatal dog attack is an exceptionally rare event, yet many communities and cities believe that the solution to prevent severe and fatal dog attacks is to label, restrict or ban certain breeds of dogs as potentially dangerous. If the breed of dog was the primary or sole determining factor in a fatal dog attack, it would necessarily stand to reason that since there are literally millions of Rottweilers, Pit Bulls and German Shepherd Dogs in the United States, there would have to be countless more than an approximate 20-25 human fatalities per year. Since only an infinitesimal number of any breed is implicated in a human fatality, it is not only unreasonable to characterize this as a specific breed behavior by which judge an entire population of dogs, it also does little to prevent fatal or severe dog attacks as the real causes and events that contribute to a fatal attack are masked by the issue of breed and not seriously addressed.

From 1965 - 2001, there have been at least 36 different breeds/types of dog that have been involved in a fatal attack in the United States. (This number rises to at least 52 breeds/types when surveying fatal attacks worldwide). We are increasingly becoming a society that has less and less tolerance and understanding of natural canine behaviors. Breed specific behaviors that have been respected and selected for over the centuries are now often viewed as unnatural or dangerous. Dogs have throughout the centuries served as protectors and guardians of our property, possessions and families. Dogs have also been used for thousands of years to track, chase and hunt both large and small animals. These natural and selected-for canine behaviors seem to now eliciting fear, shock and a sense of distrust among many people.

There seems to be an ever growing expectation of a "behaviorally homogenized" dog - "Benji" in the shape of a Rottweiler. Breeds of dogs with greater protection instincts or an elevated prey-drive are often unfairly viewed as "aggressive or dangerous". No breed of dog is inherently vicious, as all breeds of dogs were created and are maintained exclusively to serve and co-exist with humans. [The problem exists not within the breed of dog, but rather within the owners that fail to control, supervise, maintain and properly train the breed of dog they choose to keep.

Any dog, regardless of breed, is only as dangerous as his/her owner allows it to be.

If you have a "mean" dog then it is your responsibility to keep it under complete control. "Accidents happen" simply isn't good enough.

Just thought this bears bumping again. I am amazed at the apparent lack of dog knowledge some posters here seem to display. Young dogs kill old dogs all the time. Breed is irrelevant here. Anybody who has old dogs and acquires young dogs should be well aware of this before leaving them together unsupervised.

I am also amazed that there are people on DOL who believe that a dog's behaviour is 100% a result of nurture when there are countless scientific articles on the subject. Even more amazing is that some people don't believe "their" breed or a certain breed who is small or a toy breed or whatever is incapable of aggression. They are all dogs. They are all capable. Their triggers and thresholds may vary but denying this is very naive as some other posters have pointed out. I believe many large breed owners probably have the same attitude ("my dog would never do that") and maybe that is what causes some of these incidents in the first place....

And while I do realize that it makes sense that large breeds are more capable of inflicting damage, I would like to say that small breeds not only have killed people by mauling them but can also cause accidents by chasing people and dogs in front of traffic etc, so saying they are harmless seems a little naive to me as well. All dogs need to be controlled and managed and even tiny dogs can be dangerous to very young children, so awareness of this is important, in my opinion, rather than spouting the old "small dogs do small damage" and possibly leaving less dog savvy people in the belief that leaving their young child alone with a dog is ok because it's small and can't do any damage.

Excellent idea.

Tragic how few know it. Let alone believe it.

Until reality is absorbed such tragedies can only continue to increase instead of decrease.

[Wobbly]

Inez, are you pro BSL or anti BSL?

You are one of the most prolific posters on the subject, yet despite all your noise it's still unclear to me where you stand on the issue. Please respond, I am interested. A simple statement of "Yes, I support BSL" or "no, I don't support BSL" would be more than adequate. I'm only asking 4 or 5 words from you for clrification, not a big ask given your usual volubility on the subject.

[mantis]

What I've gotten from a scan of some posts is that people do support BSL. Well we have BSL, yet people are still being maimed and killed by dogs in alarming numbers. BSL doesn't work, it's unenforeceable and ineffective, maulings like this one are pretty clear evidence of that.

Imagine if APBTs etc were made legal. People could acquire the breed from responsible, registered breeders instead of the BYBs who are currently the only option. Were APBTs legal, they would be eligible for conformation shows, some lines could be bred for pet temperament and conformation showing, with lower drive, and higher arousal thresholds, great for suburban families. Other lines would be bred for work (by which I mean sports like weight pull), these pups, being of working temperament must be homed far more carefully, only to people capable and dedicated enough to meet their rather demanding management requirements. The only way to ensure the latter are being homed appropriately is to make them legal so that the responsibility is taken out of the hands of BYB cowboys and put in the hands of responsible, registered breeders whose practices are subject to scrutiny by regulatory bodies.

Supplement the responsible breeding and homing of pups (which can only occur is BSL is repealed) with education programs, strict enforcement of leash and containment laws, jail for owners of dogswho maim people, and we really would have the beginnings of legislation that really would be effective in reducing the occurrence of horrific maulings.

Repealing BSL would open the way for sensible, effective legislation.

Inez (and others who are pro BSL) are vociferously against repealing BSL. Ergo Inez (and co.) are vociferously opposed to any move towards enacting sensible legislative efforts to curb the maulings. The only logical conclusion is that Inez and other supporters of BSL support the status quo - these regular and savage maulings.

You are wrong. I agree wholeheartedly with you.

All I want is the owners of these dogs to be as responsible for theirs as we are for ours.

NONE of my dogs have ever been allowed to roam. I do not believe it is safe for either my dogs or fair for anyone to be confronted with a strange dog be it running in front of their car and causing an accident, or going into their property or risking their stock may be frightened or wost case attacked or cause fear of attack.

It is absolutely infuriating to come home and find someone elses are on my property, chasing my stock or attempting to attack my dogs.

We shouldnt have to wake up to the screeaming of our neighbours sheep or goats being torn to pieces, to find a foal or a calf mauled through no fault of its own. Of course in surberbia its children, pets and in this latest tragedy that poor jogger.

If I and my friends can be responsible for our animals WHY on earth cant others be just the same?

If they really cared for their dogs regardless of whether its a toy or a giant breed. It belongs AT HOME and under supervision.

What is really needed is strong enough laws that people who dont can be prosecuted with more than a dont be naughty again.

Banned for life from ever owing one again if they repeat offend.

As for the sickos that get their kicks when they run down working dogs any chance they get on roadsides moving their owners stock or in the case of the poor husky pup shoot it as its happlily running to them? At least that one has had his guns confiscated. But many just use their cars, they should still be held to account if their number plate can be read.

It wont ever stop these things happening, murders still happen, but any reduction possible would be at least a cause for celebration.

Knowing the potential of your chosen breed and and making sure accidents cant happen is the best start surely?

Feel the need to quote to account for the retrospective editing.

This post implies that you don't support BSL, however every other post you've written implies you do support BSL, which is it?

:clap: :clap:

[inez]

Inez, are you pro BSL or anti BSL?

You are one of the most prolific posters on the subject, yet despite all your noise it's still unclear to me where you stand on the issue. Please respond, I am interested. A simple statement of "Yes, I support BSL" or "no, I don't support BSL" would be more than adequate. I'm only asking 4 or 5 words from you for clrification, not a big ask given your usual volubility on the subject.

I would be very interested to know your feelings if it was you instead of the jogger in hospital.

One of the reasons ive nothing to do but net surf (when I am home that is) 11 days of the last weeks has been at various diagnostic clinics and Hospitals because I too was attacked in a public place minding my own business.

It is not a pleasant feeling knowing I could still die from one of the side affects of the attack, namely DVT.

So sit in your comfy chair and pontificate over MY angel would NEVER do something like that. The owner of the one that nearly killed me is going through that nightmare and I feel as sorry for him as I do myself.

He had absolutely no idea his pet is a nut until that milisecond when he lost the plot because his best mate left his side, his pet he now knows suffers incredibly separation anxiety issues.

I am incredilbly lucky I am not dead or you couldnt be upset by my stupid efforts to understand how and or why people can be so easily maimed or killed.

Im still comming to terms about how I feel about the creature that nearly killed me.

Although I would hate even more to be in the shoes of its owner.

Will I ever feel safe again in a public place?

Its going to be rather a long time before I get to find out the answer to that one.

Edited June 1, 2013 by inez

[Zug Zug]

As someone who has been badly attacked myself many years ago, you have my sympathy. My dog was also badly injured a few years ago by a dog I brought home from the pound, and had to take back. Neither of these were breeds typically discussed in the context of BSL - one a boxer and the other a Labrador poodle cross.

It is not necessary for you to have a clear view on BSL. It's ok to simply not know the answer. Especially so soon after a traumatic event, when as you say your reactions are quite different to normal and understandably so.

For myself, I have come to a view that BSL is not the answer, but I do feel very frustrated at the current approaches to animal management, with so many owners so casual about safety. And so many people thinking all dogs need a chance to run free in public places with other dogs.

Like you, I know all too well how quickly things can go wrong.

I do think some dogs are mean. The dog that attacked me was an example. He attacked others as well - mean to the core. But most boxers are lovely, and I would never generalise his behaviour to tarnish the whole breed.

i had to retrain myself to feel comfortable around larger dogs after that happened. It took a while but did work. I wish you luck with your own recovery.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Zug Zug

[Dame Aussie]

Mean to the core? Sorry I don't believe dogs can be "mean". That's something reserved for humans. Other animals dont go around holding grudges and having motives, they don't go out looking to hurt someone.

[BlackJaq]

"Mean" is a very emotional term... Just saying.

[Santo66]

What do people honestly expect when the breeding of dogs is a free for all, breed what you like, when you like to whatever you like and the community suffers the consequences of poorly bred dogs with character deficiencies and flaws.......what do people think will be the result in a breeding system that has no accountability for what is being produced?

A car manufacturer produces a car with a faulty brake system and authorities force a national recall where the manufacturer is responsible to rectify the problem and can be held accountable for public saftey. A breeder whether that be a BYB or registered breeder, can mismatch two dogs to produce fear biters or traits of uncapped aggression and that's ok..........IMHO it's not ok at all, these breeders of crap dogs need to be held accountable.

The Rotty for example who attacked the child's face........what sort of a Rotty is this thing, who bred the damn dog with what in the parentage.....the dog was so short in nerve, so displaced in suspicion that it needed to attack a child assumed as a threat, or was the dog scared of the child and attacked out of fear......whatever the case........that dog was a crap Rotty at all levels......I doubt the Rotty had been trained to attack kids in a working role, the dog was clearly of poor breeding, but as we speak, the breeder of that dog could be preserving the poor trait quality in the next litter for the next accident to happen with the next unstable dog they produce excellent isn't it

The sad thing is that people in the "tough breeds" actually do purposely breed these types of dangerous dogs.......even in working circles, they can often promote and breed dogs of unstable character and condemn dogs of stable character as not having enough "civil drive" because they don't know how to select or train a dog of balanced temperament and character for the working roles they breed for. The same applies with many of these Bull breed concoctions, purposely breeding powerful dogs with high levels of social aggression as pets come protection dogs......it's these dogs getting out when the owner drops the ball that ends up in scenarios like the recent jogger attack.

It's time breeders of dangerous dogs are held accountable.....stopping at the owner isn't good enough to lessen the chance of further attacks.....breed crap dogs of unstable character and it's involved in an unprovoked attack look out is how IMHO it needs to be.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Santo66