Dangerous dogs registry

[Slegr]

I say go further than a registry. Ban dangerous dog breeds. 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-columbia/aggressive-dog-registry-1.3743056

Mayors will vote on province-wide registry for dangerous dogs 

Pitt Meadows mayor wants cities to sign on with registry at Union of B.C. Municipalities convention

B.C. mayors will vote on whether to implement a province-wide registry for dangerous dogs next month. A resolution on the issue will be presented at the annual Union of B.C. Municipalities convention in Victoria.

Pitt Meadows mayor John Becker says the registry should be simple and focus on the animal's history of behaviour, not its breed.

"To single out a particular breed seemed to miss the mark, we're trying to deal with dangerous dogs of any breed," said Becker.

The city wants a single practice put in place across the province to track potentially dangerous animals if they move from one municipality to another.

Most cities have their own rules for dealing with dangerous dogs but each municipality has slightly different practices.

"What we would like to see is those requirements transported across jurisdictions so that an animal that has been involved in an attack of some sort will be required to adhere to these precautions no matter where the animal resides in B.C."

Becker says a registry would allow cities to impose rules on problem dogs — such as muzzling in public.

Two serious incidents

A dog was killed and another was injured in a fight during an incident in Langley Tuesday and an elderly woman suffered serious injuries after a dog attacked her Monday.

"It underscores the need for this kind of attention, certainly," said Becker.

Marcie Moriarty of the BC SPCA says the initiative will highlight the organization's mission of responsible pet ownership and breeding, humane training, and permanent identification.

"We would be in support of legislation in whatever form that may take that would assist in addressing those issues together with the issue of dangerous dogs," said Moriarty.

[Green Building]

15 minutes ago, Slegr said:

I say go further than a registry. Ban dangerous dog breeds. 

 

 

I've met "non-dangerous" breeds who have lashed out, just the same as I have met so-called dangerous breeds who have been among the most well behaved and mild tempered dogs I've ever met.  A registry of any kind doesn't solve anything, the only true solution is to ban negligent owners from raising pets with potential negative personality outbursts, and if those breeds can't be specifically outlined in any reasonable fashion then perhaps instead they shouldn't own any pets at all.

 

Don't blame the animal. 

[Art Vandelay]

http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/dog-attack-deaths-maimings-merritt-clifton-2014.pdf

 

This is pretty clear. Two breeds stick out. One is astonishing.

 

However, you can't ban specific breeds, as they are family to so many, and are trained well. I do however support grandfathering out some breeds. 

 

Very sensitive issue. I'm all for being a responsible owner, but you cant ignore statistics.

[Hobble]

There are no dangerous dog breeds, just dangerously inadequate owners.

[KFBR392]

16 minutes ago, Green Building said:

 

I've met "non-dangerous" breeds who have lashed out, just the same as I have met so-called dangerous breeds who have been among the most well behaved and mild tempered dogs I've ever met.  A registry of any kind doesn't solve anything, the only true solution is to ban negligent owners from raising pets with potential negative personality outbursts, and if those breeds can't be specifically outlined in any reasonable fashion then perhaps instead they shouldn't own any pets at all.

 

Don't blame the animal. 

 

Well said. The op here is pretty damn ignorant.

 

I think having to register a dangerous dog of any breed, purely based off its history of aggression is a terrific idea. I've owned pitbulls for most of my life and I've never had an issue. But I've sure as hell had countless run ins with poorly trained dogs of every size who lunge at me and my dog.

 

Yet my dog should be banned? Kick rocks, idiot.

[KFBR392]

6 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:

http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/dog-attack-deaths-maimings-merritt-clifton-2014.pdf

 

This is pretty clear. Two breeds stick out. One is astonishing.

 

However, you can't ban specific breeds, as they are family to so many, and are trained well. I do however support grandfathering out some breeds. 

 

Very sensitive issue. I'm all for being a responsible owner, but you cant ignore statistics.

 

That website is bs. It's been exposed as essentially being a farce. Not a source of accurate information, but rather a place where a jaded individual is pushing her own agenda.

 

http://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/

 

Take a browse through those statistics. See how the apbt/ast compare to other "less dangerous" breeds. Especially considering the high volumes that they've been tested at.

[Art Vandelay]

20 minutes ago, KFBR392 said:

 

That website is bs. It's been exposed as essentially being a farce. Not a source of accurate information, but rather a place where a jaded individual is pushing her own agenda.

 

http://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/

 

Take a browse through those statistics. See how the apbt/ast compare to other "less dangerous" breeds. Especially considering the high volumes that they've been tested at.

I'm not very educated on this issue, so I apologize if the link is bogus. The detail put into the "Notes" section led me to believe it used actual attack reports. (First time I've seen this PDF)

 

I did a little more research, and read what some experts, shelters and trainers/dog walkers say, and it seems that the majority of them say there are statistically more attacks but owners are the problem (apparently this breed is more likely to be raises by bad owners than other breeds), or the stereotype attributes to poor behavior by humans around them. 

 

I was definitely more ignorant on this issue than I thought. I'm a cat person though.

[Warhippy]

I lol at these kinds of statements.

 

Dangerous breeds.  Ok statistically, the smaller breeds bite and attack more frequently but with obviously less significant injury or fatalities.  But by and large the majority of attacks and bites come from deemed non dangerous breeds.

 

Jack russel terriers in fact are top 25 for most reported bites from breeds.  Pomeranians, toy poodles and poodles.  Yorkies.  All well within that top 25

 

Hell go further.  top 20?  includes the mighty border collie, labs and retrievers But laughingly, by and large most of the fatal or dangerous breed bites come from, mixed breed animals.  So how do you go about legislating against a mutt?

 

 

So come on OP, define dangerous breed, is it the big bad scary dogs; or is it in fact the dogs with the most frequent biting history?

 

http://dogs.petbreeds.com/stories/4046/dog-breeds-attack#Intro 

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2015-09-09-1441823703-9937606-Reynoldsburg.jpg 

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Dog+attack+stats+with+breed+2012.pdf

 

So while large breed dogs are reported as having the most injurious or dangerous bites; information clearly  that by and large mid size to smaller breed dogs also have significant history in bites.

 

If we are deeming dangerous dogs, it has to be species wide, not breed specific

[MikeBossy]

My girlfriend and I have what would technically be classified as a Dangerous breed dog. She is a 1 yr old Pit/Lab Cross.We also have a Lab/Bloodhound Cross. They are both amazingly gentle and loving dogs. My issue with a lot of the rhetoric around dangerous dogs is the fact it is usually incompetent owners. How a dog is raised plays a lot into its behaviour. 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cherry-garcia-rehabilitated-michael-vick-fighting-pit-bull-gets-best-day_us_579626dfe4b02d5d5ed2329b

 

Amazing article on one of the dogs Michael Vick's dog-fighting ring used who has been fully rehabilitated. It's my understanding that a lot of them have been re-homed. Irresponsible ownership leads to the majority of dog attacks as well as how they are raised. I have been bit by more "small breeds" and seen more agression from them than the socalled dangerous breeds. If the solution is muzzling a dog then all dogs when in public should be muzzled regardless of size.

 

Just my 2 cents. 

[Lancaster]

As an owner of a toy breed that has been attacked by an Argentine Dogo... or some breed that's very similar, I'm afraid of letting my dog go off-leash at the park nowadays.  So often I'm just walking on the sidewalk and you see some hulking "pit bull", normally un-neutered and just really pulling against the owner to come across the street to tear my dog into shreds. 

 

I'm not the perfect owner either as my little dog is a SOB in every sense of the word, but the difference is that my little guy at the very worst will nip at your pants around your ankles.... the worst the more powerful breeds can do is severely maim and kill not just animals but people. 

 

 

That being said, I've come across some "pit bull" breeds, mastiffs, etc... who are the most gentlest dog our there, so most of the onus should be placed on the owners.  Bad dogs usually have bad owners or at least owners who are not prepared nor suitable on owning such a breed.  Bad owners, like the one that attacked my dog, probably don't even license their dog (that one had no collar and I've never seen that owner at Trout Lake before or since... and I'm a regular there). 

It seems that the more powerful breeds tend to draw certain type of owners.  I would say 50% of all "pit bull" I've come across are still intact, making them very aggressive... yet almost every Golden Retriever, German Shepard and Poodle are all neutered. 

 

Registration is good in theory... but most bad dog owners probably won't give a damn anyways. 

[Nuxfanabroad]

I'd like to see Brad Marchand registered. He IS somewhat dangerous, offensively. Banning is fine too.

[Moonshinefe]

So have the incidents of dog attacks risen in recent years? They cite one incident, that's hardly reason to create a new, sweeping law.

 

I'm not totally against the idea, but something tells me that negligent owners who raise their dogs improperly and who make it on that registry as a result of not restraining them properly... probably won't care about the law. Their precious dog is surely just misunderstood, or they don't care, etc.

[Hookman]

I won't be registering my dog. Government can stick it where the sun don't shine, like we need more reasons for the government to keep tabs on us.

[Bocivus]

What I was going to say has already been pointed out here. 

I've been around dogs all my life and a responsible owner that is knowledgeable on dog behavior will keep these so called "dangerous breeds" from harming anyone.  Of course there are going to be cases here and there, after all, we're talking about animals here and accidents can happen.

I've been bitten by 2 dogs.  One was a Scottish Terrier when I was a kid and the other was a Belgian Malanois Military Working Dog while I wearing a bite sleeve.  The terrier got me because I reached over the fence into his yard (should have known better) when he didn't know me.  The other bite... Well, that was just curiosity and since I was in a position to see what it was like I tried it.  Damn do those dogs bite hard.    It was a cool experience but not one I'd do again. 

[Standing_Tall#37]

 OP, you forgot to mention that 1 in every 12 dogs in North America now is a pitbull or a mix containing it. 

 

OP you forgot to mention that bull breeds have an 87% pass rate while the average dog has an 82% pass rate. ( meaning other dogs are 5% more likely to stop to show first aggression) 

 

 You also neglected to tell us that Chihuahuh, Jack Russell and poodles are the most likely to attack. However most people don't report this. Getting bit by these guys is like getting beat by a woman. It's still assault but no one wants to admit it happened to them so it gets ignored. I think any dog that bites a human should be put down. 

 

It truly speaks volumes about the owners personality and intelligence how a dog behaves, not the dog. Perhaps the human should get put down when a dog bites.

[smokes]

I don't get it, instead of a dengerous dogs registry why don't they make up a unfit to own a dog registry.

[Slegr]

People who say owners are the problem are not off base, but guess what? Guns themselves aren't problems either, it's owners there too. In Canada, we place more emphasis on the accessibility to guns than the US though because it eliminates the potential. 

Sure some dogs of dangerous breeds are seemingly harmless, but others are not. And the way they are genetically built is far different than a Chihuahua. Their jaws lock if they get a hold of you, and the only way to release is have their eyes gored out. There are lots of less harmful types of dogs / breeds. Why not reduce the risk of extreme harm and have them grandfathered out? People always say it's the owners fault, but no owners ever own up to being the problem. 

 

[riffraff]

8 hours ago, Art Vandelay said:

http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/dog-attack-deaths-maimings-merritt-clifton-2014.pdf

 

This is pretty clear. Two breeds stick out. One is astonishing.

 

However, you can't ban specific breeds, as they are family to so many, and are trained well. I do however support grandfathering out some breeds. 

 

Very sensitive issue. I'm all for being a responsible owner, but you cant ignore statistics.

I was surprised at the Labrador numbers to.

[kloubek]

8 hours ago, KFBR392 said:

I think having to register a dangerous dog of any breed, purely based off its history of aggression is a terrific idea.

Me too.  And I'd go one step further - saying that an owner who has a history of having aggressive animals should be banned from owning them.

 

I have a Staffie, and hate hate hate the bad rap Bully breeds have received from the media.  But with that said, let's face two facts:
 

1) If a Pitbull attacks you, you're going to end up with far more damage than you would, say, a Poodle.  Yet, Poodles are known to be one of the most inherently aggressive dogs around.

2) Some (though certainly not all) Pitbull owners tend to be less than... "savoury" individuals.  They want to look tough, want a dog for protection because they have a history of getting in altercations, or are aggressive individuals who want a weapon at their disposal.  These kinds of people are NOT people who should be allowed to own dogs.  They don't train them properly and they don't love them properly.  An untrained and unloved dog that possesses the strength and jaws of a Pitbull is damage just waiting to happen. 

 

Outright bans on Pitbulls will do nothing but lead these unsavoury people to acquire dogs of a different breed; it's a temporary mask which will not solve anything.  Soon enough, the "breed of the day" for these kinds of people will be a Rottweiler or a German Shepherd.  (I believe both have already had their time as being the "bad breed" in the past).  At this rate, it will take us decades or centuries before we realize that the dogs themselves are not the problem, with BSL and the media doing nothing to get to the crux of the matter, which is owners not taking proper responsibility for their animals.  Until the focus changes to that, we're going to continue to see these bullcrap pieces of legislation which are going to do nothing to solve the actual issue.
 

31 minutes ago, Slegr said:

And the way they are genetically built is far different than a Chihuahua. Their jaws lock if they get a hold of you, and the only way to release is have their eyes gored out. There are lots of less harmful types of dogs / breeds. Why not reduce the risk of extreme harm and have them grandfathered out? People always say it's the owners fault, but no owners ever own up to being the problem. 

 

Actually, this is not true.  Their jaws do NOT lock.  That's a total myth.  You're on a roll of being completely misinformed.  (Which I already assumed when I read your OP)

Yes, there are lots of less harmful types of dogs, and if the decision is to rule out certain breeds because of their damage potential, then while I don't agree with it, I can at least see the logic behind that.  But to focus on Pitbulls specifically is a total waste of time for all.

And you're right, owners don't admit to being the problem.  That's why stiffer legislation needs to be in place to ensure owners are forced to be responsible for their animals.  If you leave the scene of an attack, you will be charged.  If your dog attacks someone, you will be responsible for assault.  Those kinds of rules should certainly make people think twice about going out and getting an animal they don't wish to properly take care of.

 

[Slegr]

15 minutes ago, kloubek said:

Actually, this is not true.  Their jaws do NOT lock.  That's a total myth.  You're on a roll of being completely misinformed.  (Which I already assumed when I read your OP)
 

While their jaws may not physically lock, they've been selectively bred for a specific bite style where they hold on and shake indefinitely. They have enormous jaw strength as well as a ruinous hold-and-shake bite style, designed to inflict maximum damage.