Which breeds would you like to see regulated?

P

prosefullstop

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 February 2009
Messages
1,609
Visit site
There have been recent attempts made to prohibit certain dog breeds from NYC public housing (council estates, basically). The original list included 26 breeds (Boston Terriers were on it
mad.gif
crazy.gif
) but legislators have narrowed the breed specific guidelines down to just three:

Pit Bulls
Rottweillers
Doberman Pinschers

Do you think banning certain breeds from certain sections of society has any effect? Would you add any breeds to the list? Do you think similar rules should be actualised within the UK?

Here's an article detailing the above...
 
We already have similar rules - the Dangerous Dogs Act bans certain breeds, most famously pitbulls. It was brought in as a reaction to a series of dog attacks on children.

It is not effective simply because any breed of dog can be good or bad - it all comes down to the individual dog and most importantly their environment and owner. We still have dog attacks and certainly plenty of bad owners that allow their dogs to behave anti-socially.
 
I think all dog ownership should be regulated and that exams should be taken. I am not joking.

Right now I would like to see ownership of husky types and Akitas limited, for the dog's sake, I see so many numpties being dragged around by dogs who were obviously bought because they look cool and are then understimulated and underexercised (sorry, a pootle round the block of your housing estate will not do!!!)

Criminalising ownership/breeding as in the DDA model has failed miserably here and just makes scumbags want the banned breeds even more. Irish long-legged staff in the small ads, anyone?

I hate to see any breed demonised as I own GSDs and have had 20 years of stigma and horsesh!t thrown my way (yes, adults used to like reducing me to tears as a kid, telling me my dog was fierce and should be shot)
I see breeds of all shapes and sizes being bred indiscrimitely, treated badly or not as they should be so yes, make it harder to own dogs.

You want a dog? You can earn the privelige.
 
Maybe regulate dog ownership & make people take exams... but it seems a shame to pick on Rotties. I understand that dogs in the wrong hands can 'go bad' etc... however my large male (neutered) Rottie is very soft & gentle. Most of them who are treated properly seem to be naturally friendly rather than aggressive.

I suppose Kane does look intimidating if you're not used to big dogs, but he's a very good tempered doggie.

Perhaps they're trying to stamp out the 'hard man with big dog' thing? Even so, it's a shame to reinforce the Rottie's largely undeserved reputation for being a bad dog.
 
I agree that its the owners who should be regulated rather than the breeds. I think a dog licence should be re-introduced, and for a decent sum not the ridiculous 35p or whatever it used to be. All dogs should be identified by either chip or tattoo and registered to their owner, and if they were found wandering, or involved in trouble, slap the owner with a hefty fine.
 
I think regulating breeds only makes things worse, because being illegal probably just makes the wrong owners (i.e. chavvy "tough" guys) want them more, and forces breeding operations underground where welfare standards can't be upheld. I totally agree with what other people are saying about having people pass a test before they can own a dog, and bringing back dog licensing. Deed not breed indeed.
 
I know it was kind of ridiculed when it was published, but codes of practice exist for dog welfare (think it's Wales that have one so far?). I think that every time a dog changes hands, one of these should be handed over because if it's as good as the equine ones I have seen it will be very handy indeed. Surprisingly practical advice!
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think all dog ownership should be regulated and that exams should be taken. I am not joking.

Right now I would like to see ownership of husky types and Akitas limited, for the dog's sake, I see so many numpties being dragged around by dogs who were obviously bought because they look cool and are then understimulated and underexercised (sorry, a pootle round the block of your housing estate will not do!!!)

Criminalising ownership/breeding as in the DDA model has failed miserably here and just makes scumbags want the banned breeds even more. Irish long-legged staff in the small ads, anyone?

I hate to see any breed demonised as I own GSDs and have had 20 years of stigma and horsesh!t thrown my way (yes, adults used to like reducing me to tears as a kid, telling me my dog was fierce and should be shot)
I see breeds of all shapes and sizes being bred indiscrimitely, treated badly or not as they should be so yes, make it harder to own dogs.

You want a dog? You can earn the privelige.

[/ QUOTE ]

^^^ This. It's the only realistic way of policing it TBH!
 
I think you should have a license for each dog or a license per person to keep dogs. There should be tests/exams done on dog ownership,basic welfare should def be one of the exams,the amount of people who come into our surgery that don't know dogs need flea and worming treatment is amazing. I think you should at least know the real basics before buying a dog. The amount of obese animals we are seeing recently is very alarming,knowing how much your breed/size of dog SHOULD weigh is a major factor to it's welfare and wellbeing in my oppinion.
 
Im afraid I would like to see a few breeds strictly regulated *waits to be jumped on*
tongue.gif


Mainly
Rotts (I own own one)
Mastiffs
Akitas(I own one)
Staffs/Pitts(I own one)
Shar-pei's
Many more im sure, but it's late
grin.gif


Breeding should be heavily taxed and strictly regulated, u should have to be legally registered to breed and be certified, and also have taken some exams in related welfare and adhere to testing regulations, and dogs like cars should be insured, and obs the bigger and more potentially hazardous the dog, the bigger the insurance premium to cover for liability, I think this alone would stop them getting into the hands of chavs and I look hard wanna bee's,a s they are hardly going to pay out up to £40= a month, and potentially have to foot a liable bill if the dog is aggressive, as most insurance won't cover for this, certainly not after a first episode.
Dog should be chipped to breeder primarily and purchaser secondly and they be held responsible if the dog turns up in a rescue or roaming the roads and have their breeders licence removed and heavily fined, this would make breeders think twice about selling to any old idiot and place more emphasis on returns contracts.

Dog training classes to be made compulsary, for atleast the first year of ownership, kids have to go to school, so should dogs and owners
grin.gif


We should have dog wardens with scanners on patrol like those on [****] patrol
grin.gif
, to randomly scan anyone with an out of control dog or anyone reported to be acting like a dick with their dog, or literaly any dog, just like we are pulled over by police for spot checks, and if there is no trace of chip which could link to a data base, to check for insurance, then dog should be removed on the spot.
People should have to attend training programmes to prove they can handle the dog they wish to purchase with the same breed type, and be approved to do so.

OK, so im well OTT, but Im a rescue, I can be excused
tongue.gif
grin.gif
 
suppose its time to name the breeds of the 2 dogs whose owner allows them to cause mayhem in my village.

the scariest is the husky/gsd bitch who is very alpha and her larger partner in crime is a malamute. the malamute is probably the more trainable of the 2. the bitch really should belong to an obedience or agility enthusiast

as for rotties - they only problem I've had is supporting their weight when they lean against me
 
[ QUOTE ]

Dog training classes to be made compulsary, for atleast the first year of ownership, kids have to go to school, so should dogs and owners
grin.gif




[/ QUOTE ]

Blimey if I had to go to my local "pet obedience class in the village hall" type classes for a year I'm not sure I'd get another dog!!
tongue.gif


I think there is a difference between pet dog owners and dogs that are brought by "experienced people" - as in gundogs/agility dogs/good breeders/rescuers/fosterers and I always think if too much is legal stuff is brought in it will actually be these people that suffer - costs of having to have permits/registering dogs/compulsory classes
shocked.gif
/ etc while the people that need all this will still not comply anyway.

I think that there are some breeds that in the wrong hands could be much more likely to bite/attack than say a rottie/GSD, for example a collie in the wrong hands, it is just that your local hardman wouldn't look quite so hard with a fluffy collie by his side!! I also think a pack of little dogs could probably be quite effective attack dogs as they are always snappy
wink.gif
 
Cala, my experience of Akitas is very limited (three total
tongue.gif
) but they have all been outgoing, friendly, and gentle with Stella. I was under the impression that they were aloof?
 
The problem is how do you tell a dog is a pitbull??!!! I could but they just say they are staffie crosses!!!! Therefore it makes the rule abit pointless!! Also are they including rotti x's and dobbi x's??

If they have picked these breeds because of their size rather than temperaments then I would also include the Japanese Akita, I've had to mop up after more Akita attacks than Doberman ones!! You could also include GSD's!!!! Again big dogs and in the wrong hands will cause alot of damage. And what about the American Bulldog?? a similar breed to the pitbull in looks and size? You could also add Mastiffs (all kinds) big and in the wrong hands dangerous!!!!! I could go on and on.

The better way to have it is to ensure anyone in an NYC home who has or wants a dog has to do a one day/half day course and at the end get a certificate of competancy and then the dog they have is to be microchipped and therefore linked to them.
 
Obs here are some crap training classes out there
smirk.gif
I absoloutelt get your point there
grin.gif
, but im sure if they where made compulsary, there would be more on offer and a better one could be chosen.
Little dog can be snappy as can colli's, but they cannot cause the damage the above breeds can if they turn on a human/animal.
I understand we will all suffer for the likes of the dickhead dog owners, but, I would rather pay out than see dogs owned by idiots, heck maybe I can actually have a normal amount of dogs instead of 11 if the rescue numbers decrease and actually have a life
smirk.gif
, with the introduction of a new scheme
smirk.gif

Something has to be done.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Cala, my experience of Akitas is very limited (three total
tongue.gif
) but they have all been outgoing, friendly, and gentle with Stella. I was under the impression that they were aloof?

[/ QUOTE ]

Akita are time bombs in the wrong hands, they are an absouloue power house of a dog, poss one of the most potentially aggressive dogs I have come across in the wrong hands, in the right hands they make very bidable large breeds pets, like mine
smirk.gif
, but I would still like to see them regulated.
As competitiondiva states, when they turn, they don't mess about, they give very little warning, strike at amazing speed and literally smother their victim and can severely maim a dog of their own weight/size with little problem.
 
The problem is, like horses, any of these regulations will only affect the honest, good dog owners. The crap owners/breeders will simpl not do it, much like passports etc.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is, like horses, any of these regulations will only affect the honest, good dog owners. The crap owners/breeders will simpl not do it, much like passports etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

which is why the dog should be microchipped and then it can be confirmed that the owner has been certified to keep the dog. If a dog is found in the house that isn't chipped it can then be removed.....
 
I lived in the states for 2 yrs (99-01), and suspect these rules are being introduced as the Housing Authority has a duty of care to its tenants.

The San Francisco attack, where a woman was killed in the hall way outside of her apartment by 2 dogs, has no doubt impacted on local bylaws. i think they were dobermans, but not totally sure.

At least in Illinois, where I lived, dog owners were subject to far more lenient legislation than the UK. A dog that repeatedly bites is destoyed in the Uk. In illinois, the owner got to pay compensation instead.

There is also the issue of fencing. Most UK dogs have fenced gardens. Electric collars are used, but these are not common in urban areas. I'm guessing that property owned by NYC may not be fenced, and there may be local ordinances preventing fences.
Given this scenario, the potential for injuries to children straying into someone else's garden must be quite high.

Sadly, in my experience, the US has the same morons who buy butch dogs to deal with their own inadequces (sp). I was happy to let my dogs mix with 1 pitbull at the dog park, but kept them well clear of others.

As for Boston Terriers, guess what breed last snapped at me!
 
[ QUOTE ]


As for Boston Terriers, guess what breed last snapped at me!

[/ QUOTE ]

My Stella apologises on behalf of her brethren. A BT should never, *ever* show aggression toward a human. They are first and foremost a companion dog, and have no inbuilt wariness of strangers. In fact, I honestly haven't heard of one that acted that way before--with dogs, yes, but definitely not with people.
 
Small dogs such as Chihuahuas and Yorkies should be on a register of some sort, and people can only own one if they sign a document promising that they will not dress them up like bloody dolls and will let the poor little buggers walk instead of carrying them everywhere
mad.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Small dogs such as Chihuahuas and Yorkies should be on a register of some sort, and people can only own one if they sign a document promising that they will not dress them up like bloody dolls and will let the poor little buggers walk instead of carrying them everywhere
mad.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

grin.gif
grin.gif
grin.gif
grin.gif
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Small dogs such as Chihuahuas and Yorkies should be on a register of some sort, and people can only own one if they sign a document promising that they will not dress them up like bloody dolls and will let the poor little buggers walk instead of carrying them everywhere
mad.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I saw a lady with five chihuahuas yesterday, and all were in non-bling harnesses and walking merrily along. They were by far the best-behaved, coolest chihuahuas I've seen
grin.gif
 
Chihuahuas are great little dogs if they are allowed to be dogs. I used to have one and he did everything "proper" dogs do, his only downside was that he was a horror for peeing on peoples feet. Did it to a visiting policeman once
ooo.gif
Luckily he was a dog handler and saw the funny side.
smile.gif
 
My Dobie is the sweetest boy around - nobody can believe how much of a softie he is inside the house. But he can be a handful outside as he doesn't like other dogs, cats, foxes, birds... you get the picture. But that was what he was bred for - to protect the tax collectors outside! I think that people choose dogs too much on looks and not on what they are bred for. Maybe there should be a test designed for each breed - like a driving test, a theory and a practical with a dog of that breed and whether you buy from a pet shop, breeder or rescue centre it should be a legal requirement to have a breed specific pass. I realise that it will never happen - but I think its a good idea none the less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top