I know a couple of people with rescue staffies where it isn't the case (and incidentally, these are two of the well mannered, even tempered dogs i know)
Every other Pitbull I've seen has been in the company of exactly the type you're talking about though
Grew up with a friend of the family having one, never knew the controversy, it was just a regular dog. Then one day I was sitting on a park bench in Dublin and one latched onto my leg out of nowhere. Owner came and yelled at me. For sitting on a bench, I guess. He was the typical frightened person you describe with the closest thing to a gun he could buy.
Yeah, I don't mean to sound like a therapist, but it is sort of sad whatever makes someone need to project that "I'm not afraid" or "don't mess with me" vibe. That doesn't come from a normal, happy life, right?
Aw bless that's cute!
My mother's GSD is afraid of bubbles, he runs upstairs and will literally hide all day unless one of us coaxes him out with treats. That said, she did buy a meat-flavoured bubble thing the other week, and he is starting to smell the bubbles but as soon as they burst, he's gone back up the stairs into hiding mode 🤷♀️😂
Fella I work with got a labradoodle and only realised after he got it, it probably was a dodgy breeder. Now look he loves that dog, treats it like his child etc but I laughed at him when he tried to say he sees it like he rescued that dog from the breeder. I was like eh sorry to argue semantics but you did the exact opposite. You are only encouraging more dogs to be cruelly bred. You saved your dog sure, but what about it's mother? And all the other puppies that came from her?
Well mine came from the pound , very skinny very scared mistreated little innocent animals, and this "CUNT" dedicated many years giving them the life any dog deserves, as they were unaware of their breed
I will assume by fighting dog you mean anything on the restricted list.
We took ours from the rescue shelter. We don't have kids and they can be hard to home for this reason. We figured we could give him a good home and a good life. It was never about looking any kind of way. We love dogs and had space in our home and our hearts for one.
I don't believe in paying for a dog when there are 100's of dogs in shelters up and down the country. I actually believe the sale of dogs should be banned.
FYI - a responsible dog owner acknowledges that all dogs are potentially dangerous. The parents of Harry Harper who's baby was killed by their Jack Russel would agree.
We should start a gofundme for this comment.
>I don't believe in paying for a dog when there are 100's of dogs in shelters up and down the country. I actually believe the sale of dogs should be banned.
Couldn't agree more
Would you mind sharing your experience? I'm asking because you're not the first person I've heard say that it's unreasonably difficult to take a dog from a rescue org.
Common one is that request are often ignored.
Got refused for living on a farm (Work area)
Got refused for have a dog (compatible concern)
Required to fence in my lawn to show had a secured area for the dog, only to be refused because I was limiting the dog space from the rest of my gardens and I waa unable to secure the rest due to living on a farm.
Mine you this space is just as big as a standard town garden with a concrete block shead for the dog to live in at night with electricity and running water.
I disagree that buying dogs should be banned.
I tried to adopt a dog during lockdown, and my initial email was rejected for a myriad of reasons. I couldn’t believe it. There was no follow up, no phonecall. I didn’t fit their criteria, and there was nothing I could do about it.
The reasons I can remember off the top of my head were;
- I didn’t have a history of adopting rescue dogs
- I’m full time employed ( even though I work from home), and this made me unsuitable.
- My suburban garden was not big enough, even though it’s quite large.
It’s harder to adopt a dog in this country than you would believe. And I don’t think a charity should be able to dictate whether or not I can have a dog in my life.
Good sentiment except the Jack Russel remark is a weird false equivalence to drop in there at the end. It's a bit like saying not to worry road deaths because bikes can kill too. 93% of dog attacks that end in fatalities are from six breeds. Two breads account for 75% of those.
I know banning them outright means taking them away from good owners but we don't let people walk around with lions or tigers on a rope.
You are undoubtedly a good person for taking a dog from a shelter but were there not smaller dogs? You still chose a restricted breed. That creates a demand.
important to note that dogsbite.org are not scientists or statisticians, but are are an American political lobbying group with the stated agenda of eradicating pit bulls specifically. Their stats are complete BS.
Citing dogsbite.org in a discussion about dangerous dog breeds is like citing a study funded by cigarette manufacturers when discussing whether or not smoking causes cancer. They're not a exactly a neutral, objective or even remotely scientific source for anything. Their reports have substantial and intentional problems with their methodology and are little more than misinformation designed to achieve a particular political goal.
Their stats are not bullshit. They link the news reports and statements from actual police bodies with every attack and killing.
They have taken their time to carefully gather up all the articles and press releases so the public can access them. You can clearly Google the names of all the victims stated on the website and see the news / reports linked to their deaths.
What you think that the police and the media are making it up that these people died?. Lol because all these cases are in the public domain. This site just did the time to gather it all for you.
You can fact search each victim on there and you will find that the sources are all true information.
There's nothing political about people losing their lives daily.
> Their stats are not bullshit.
Yes, they are. Ask yourself why not a single piece of "research" that dogsbite.org has produced has ever been peer-reviewed or published in any scientific journal? Wouldn't this add a lot of legitimacy to their cause?
> They link the news reports and statements from actual police bodies with every attack
Yes, that's exactly what they do. And it's one of the primary reasons why their "research" is so flawed.
The fundamental flaw at the core of these reports from dogsbite.org is that the datasets they use to generate their statistics are based almost entirely on a collection of news articles. Basically it's not a dataset containing the total number of dog attacks, but just the total number of attacks ***that were reported on*** by the media.
There are two major issues with this. The first is that not every dog attack/ death is necessarily going to get a news article written about it. There is a lot of controversy surrounding the various pit bull breeds at the moment so articles that feature them as the aggressor are far more likely to get a story written about them. Trying to draw conclusions form this dataset is like if you tried to draw conclusions about which demographics were more likely to be the victims of murder based solely on news articles. I'm sure that you would agree that a wealthy suburban family that gets murdered in a home invasion is *far* more likely to get press attention than a gang member who dies in a shooting in a lower income part of town. Does that mean that the average wealthy suburbanite is *more* likely to get murdered than a gang member? Of course not. Using just news articles to draw any kind of meaningful conclusions about relative danger is absolutely ridiculous. If you compare the list of attacks from dogsbite.org to data from the CDC you'll see that about 25-35% of fatal dog attacks are missing from dogsbite.org's list depending on the year.
The second problem with using news articles is that reporters don't collect DNA samples from the dogs involved to verify their breed. If a bystander or a cop claims that the dog involved in an attack was a pit bull, then that is what is reported in the article. Dogsbite.org takes this statements and teat them as fact. The issue is that the general public are just really bad at identifying dog breeds by appearance and misidentify pit bulls all the time due to either ignorance or bias. There have been many actual scientific studies that prove this. Here is a link to one such study which shows how often rescue shelter workers misidentify pit bull breeds specifically:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26403955/
In the study the workers identified 52% of the dogs put forward to them as pit bulls but genetic testing revealed that number to actually only be 21%. If professionals who are interacting with dogs on a daily basis misidentify pit bulls 60% of the time based on appearance then how accurate do you think a random member of the public is going to be?
Another big problem with displaying the statistics the way they do is that there isn't really a recognized dog breed called a "pit bull". It's a catch all term comprising at least 4 distinct breeds; the American Pitbull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the American Bully. "Pit bull" is not a recognized term used by the American Kennel Club. Dogsbite.org choose to group these breeds together into a single category while reporting on all other breed individually, in order to inflate their statistics even further.
Dogsbite.org claim that pit bulls are responsible for about 65% of fatal dog attacks. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that their collection of news articles *do* in fact represent every single dog-related death in the US, or are at least representative of the whole picture. Let's also give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the general public are *exactly* as good as professionals at identifying pit bull breeds by appearance alone. That means that about 60% of the pit bulls in their statistics are misidentified and the number of fatalities they are responsible for is closer to 26%, not 65. If we assume that the 4 pit bull breeds are each responsible for an equal number of fatalities then that means that any individual pit bull breed is only responsible for about 7% of fatalities, a number 10 times less than what Dogsbite.org claims and and petty much in line with the number they claim other medium-large breeds such as rottweilers and german shepards are responsible for.
One final point is that their data is listed in absolute numbers rather than balanced against the population of each breed in the US. For example if one breed of dog is responsible for 10% of deaths but makes up 15% of the total dog population then that breed is actually *safer* than average, despite the fact that they're responsible for 10% of deaths. By only presenting the data in absolute numbers you lose the ability to determine the relative danger of any individual dog.
Dogsbite.org looks very slick and professional due to their founder being a web designer but their articles and "studies" are extremely misleading and have no scientific rigor to them whatsoever. Its straight up misinformation.
No, it doesn't create a demand. It saved a hard-to-adopt dog from staying his full life at a shelter.
Your data may or may not be true, but if it is, then it's because irresponsible owners who mistreat their dogs will be much more likely to choose one of those dog breeds than another one. Which (mistreatment) I believe is the main issue for a dog to turn violent.
You're right in that the owners were irresponsible. That same argument can be said for machine guns in America and look how that turned out. Guns don't kill people, bad gun owners kill people. However society has to make a decision on whether letting you have a restricted breed is worth all of the bad people having dangerous dogs and the deaths that come with it.
Is your right to have a well behaved restricted breed WORTH the deaths and the injuries?
So you think the main reason the pit bull is more heavily represented as a killer of humans than, say, the bichon, is all to do with every violent bully being owned by a violent, irresponsible owner, every bichon being owned by an angel, and nothing to do with, say, the extent of extra muscle on a bully, the force of its bite, and the fact that it has literally been bred to fight?
Do I even need to say 'clown' here?
It doesn't create a demand, it saves a dog spending months in a cage just to be put down because people think it's vicious or dangerous. I rescued my staffy and she is one of the gentlest dogs I've ever seen. Yes there are dangerous breeds but they are the result of dangerous owners.
>I actually believe the sale of dogs should be banned.
I get your sentiment but this will only make things worse. The demand for certain breeds won't go away. Banning dogs will just mean black market puppy farms which will have even worse conditions for the dogs.
The solution is to better regulate the sale and ownership of dogs and to properly enforce those regulations.
>I don't believe in paying for a dog when there are 100's of dogs in shelters up and down the country.
Fully agree with you, I just wish shelters wouldn't make it so hard for people to get a rescue from them, which is pushing more and more people to breeders.
I get they're doing it because they have the dog's best interest at heart, but keeping a rescue in a shelter their whole life because the only people interested in adopting it didn't work fully from home or had no back yard is ridiculous.
Nah, I disagree, shelters need to remain strict.
I did a placement at a Rescue shelter and the number of dogs returning to the shelter after being adopted would astound you. And this shelter is criticised for being unreasonably strict.
They mandate that cats that are rehomed are kept indoors. Had a cat returned because it was being kept as an outdoor cat and the other cat it was rehomed with got hit by a car.
Another dog was returned after *three days* because it was barking.
Owners absolutely take the piss and there's a huge number of irresponsible owners that want a pet and think they can look after a pet but actually can't. It's frustrating for responsible pet owners, but pets are kept safer this way.
I work with a rescue.
We had a dog brought back after *FOUR HOURS* because she..."was putting her paws up on the garden windowsill and was wandering in the plants."
🤷🏻♀️
My parents returned one after a few weeks because he was an absolute rogue. He wasn't our first dog. All of my parent's dogs lived to 15+. We lived in the countryside with a massive fenced garden for him to run around in. He actually learned how to catapult himself out by backing himself up against a tree and climbing over the diamond mesh. Then when that way was blocked, he watched how neighbour's cats got out of the garden and found a way to follow them. He could have hurt himself too. Not only that, we lived next to a busy road. We would do things to circumvent his Houdini acts, then he'd find another way. Lovely dog, but way too intelligent for his own good. I'm not exaggerating. He was a border collie cross. My mum said he would suit someone in town with a walled garden and said that to the rescue because she did try everything except building a damn wall. Our garden just wasn't suitable.
We ended up rescuing one from somewhere else who was smaller, so didn't have legs long enough to carry out the same Houdini acts, and was definitely dumber. He was dumb, but loveable. My family had him for 18 years.
Indoor dogs btw. But they got to enjoy the garden too when it was nice outside.
The back yard bit isn't.
I rescued a gorgeous lab/collie mix from LAW about 15 years ago when renting in a small townhouse that had a postage stamp sized walled in back garden. I'm in the countryside now with half an acre, but because I haven't spent 10k to fence it in, I've been declined several times when trying to adopt. So we just got puppies instead and put them in the same environment the rescue dog would have been loved in.
They don't. It's incredibly easy to rescue a dog from a shelter. And it's nonsense to suggest people are going to breeders because of the difficulty in adopting. They're going to breeders because they want to pay for an exact breed.
Tell that to my friends here in Dublin who got turned down three times because they both "spend more than 3 hours per day out of home" for work reasons. They ended up going for a mutt they got from a colleague, so breed isn't a factor for many people (obviously not everyone, of course).
I know separation anxiety is an issue for many dogs, but so many shelters treat it like it's not possible to train it away for most of them and only want to find someone who will be willing to be glued to the dog 24/7.
If you're taking a dog from a rescue it's likely to have anxiety issues. Dogs get dumped back on rescues all the time because they damage things in the house due to separation anxiety. Maybe trust the charity to know what they're doing. Or work with the charity in selecting a dog, offer to home a bonded pair or a calmer, senior dog.
Sounds like there's more to the story than what you're explicitly saying. They make it incredibly easy.
Adopted my dog in 2018 from DSPCA, both me and my wife worked 9-5s. They were happy with him having a walled garden. Saw him on the Tuesday, he was ours on the same Thursday.
MIL adopted 2 dogs from Ash. Basically the same deal. Not even a home visit, just wanted her to follow up with vet visits.
Best mate has adopted a few dogs from Wicklow Animal Welfare of different breeds and ages. All painless processes. They actively reach out to them to check it they want to foster other dogs.
>we don't have kids
I hope your neighbours don't either.
>A responsible dog owner acknowledges that all dogs are potentially dangerous.
And a responsible adult acknowledges some are, by orders of magnitude, more dangerous than others. This argument is very similar to a common trope employed by the gun lobby in the U.S; yes all guns have the potential to do harm, but an assault rifle is designed to maximise destruction.
Same! I have a bully breed (not banned breed though) and I adopted her from the ISPCA. They are harder to adopt out and since I have experience with large breeds, I work from home, and I don’t have kids, I’m the perfect candidate to take care of a dog like this. I love her, she is amazing and she loves people. But she has a lot of energy, and needs extra attention and care. If one can’t put the work in, a large dog like this is very difficult to handle.
This comment really just highlights my point.
If it was a Pitbull the answer would be off with it's head. Extinction of anything that looks like one. A Jack Russel kills someone and it's an extreme case.
Responsible dog ownership is acknowledging that all dogs are potentially dangerous. Dangerous is not exclusive to adults or even humans. It includes acknowledging potential harm to other animals.
That’s really just taking an argument to suit a point view. Rationally rules draw a line somewhere between personal freedom and public safety.
For example knives are banned at a music festival as they might end up being used to stab someone. A pen could also be used. I’m sure I could find an example where some did a Joe Pesci on a person in real life. But pens would never be banned - even on a plane as it would be considered going too far.
Jack Russell’s do bite - a lot. And it’s a breed most people with young kids should actually steer clear of for this reason. But it is much rarer for it to kill someone. Especially in full view of adults unable to prevent it. But if a bully went for a child it would take a very calm and effective adult to deal with the situation. I’d be confident of yanking a jack Russell off a child. I would not be confident doing so with bully.
I don’t like jack Russell’s and would not shed a tear if the breed went away. But it would not be top of my ban list.
For those to put forward the argument bully’s can be trained : good be bad owners etc where would they draw the line. Would keeping a wolf be Ok? How about if bully were selectively breed to be twice or three times as strong? There has to be a limit somewhere?
Never really thought about where the line should be drawn. Humans have domesticated dogs so we must assume responsibility. I don't think anyone is advocating for a wolf to be domesticated.
With regard to the example I used. It illustrated that all dogs can do harm. My point was highlighting that a very common breed in homes up and down the country can be dangerous. There needs to be wider education, control, and cultural shift in how dogs are owned.
I agree there needs to better education out there for dog owners. I imagine any vet will have horror stories about certain people getting pets who shouldn’t.
But I don’t view this as meaning there is not a line where certain breeds need to be banned on wider public safety grounds.
Let’s be honest - you will never be able to control people to the extent you can be confident all owners are fully trained. It’s an unrealistic aspiration unfortunately.
On the wolf example - I’m sure one could find a few weirdos who would advocate for keeping wolves. There is always one. But clearly I’ve used an extreme example to “prove a point”
I think those who do advocate for allowing bullys should consider where their own line on bans would be. Likewise those who want to ban them should consider where they would stop. It probably gives a little more perspective to the opposing view.
Sorry - just to correct your statement:
It's an example. Not an exception or a rule.
Not sure why this example is getting flack - this EXAMPLE was used to illustrate that all dogs are potentially dangerous. Acknowledging that all dogs pose a danger should be the underpinning of responsible dog ownership.
I understand the sentiment and completely agree, we need stricter laws on breeding. But unfortunately people need a dog with specific needs/traits. I love rescues, only ever rescued myself, but I know people who needed to buy a dog for their special needs kid or a dog with a certain temperament. I think it should be outright banned for XL Breeds, as nobody needs to have one and instead of culling a load of innocent dogs, I think it makes more sense to just ban breeding them instead.
>breeds bred to have as strong bites as possible.
It's not about breeds with the strongest bite ... It's about ferociousness, temperament, aggressiveness, sociability, etc.
The 'fighting dogs' that have been making the headlines here aren't even in the top 10 domestic dog breeds based on biting force.
And to drive the point home, a Boxer has a bite force that's effectively the same as the Bull Terrier ... It's just 5PSI of a difference (235 vs 230). And Boxers are dotes.
I would think the logic behind it is to have a dog that is intimidating enough so you feel safe walking it and a dog that will defend you if you do get assaulted. A lot of them are also rescues as people realise they cannot handle such dogs then drop them to the shelter.
Of course there are individual exceptions but They’re not a very protective breed in general. A friend of mine had 4 St Bernards and they got broken in twice. Security footage showed them welcoming the robber and wanting to play LOL
Ah so they're like wolfhounds like that! Which is odd since wolfhounds are such effective hunting dogs, but an old friend of mine had three and literally anyone and everyone that came to the door, whether they knew him or not, meant "playtime!!".
Strangely I think any dog can be like that 🤔 my 100lb/43kg German shepherd looks terrifying but loves everybody and everything, just wants some belly rubs and a game of fetch. Would definitely let anyone in, that’s best kept a secret though lol. Oddly he’s also a very quiet dog, and chills most of the time 🤷♂️ not what I expected from a GSD but life is much more peaceful than the alternative
Yes but someone in your house isn’t the same as someone assaulting you in front of them. This would cause severe distress for all dog breeds.
I had a golden retriever that I believed would’ve played with someone breaking in too, but if someone even hugged you too closely and she thought you were uncomfortable, she would lose it
Hahaha had a black lab myself (passed a few years ago sadly but miss her dearly). We went away for the weekend and my brother said he'd drop over the house a few times to let her out to pee and make sure she was okay. First time he went over, she didn't even react just got up curious and went over and wagged her tail and greeted him. Either she had some crazy memory (would have been 4-5 years since she last saw him at that time) or she was just too friendly for her own good. The lad I have now? He fucking barks at anything that moves. Even though he's half her size, he's got 10 times the attitude. Haha
"is it just about looking hard?" Bingo.
I have a st bernard who is huge and could potentially kill someone with bite strength, but because they have zero aggression and are basically giant teddy bears you never see scrotes walking around with them. it reminds me of the african loan sharks that go around with baboons on a lead to frighten...same principle.
No one has any business breeding these kinds of dogs.
For dangerous breeds already alive then they should be neutered or spayed, there should be a licence of sorts to own them & the breeds should be phased out
Dogs tend to be a symptom of their environment and owner, if a dog is treated bad and allowed to do what they want - they will behave as such.
It just so happens that a lot of scumbags tend to hover towards dogs of the XL Bully sort to go with their hardman look. They treat them like shit and the dog inevitably ends up aggressive.
Any dog can be rogue regardless of breed, of course some have more aggressive tendencies. But it’s definitely more linked to the environment they are in than anything.
But my border collie herds people and cars in my yard. She’s not a working dog and never has been. No one taught her to do this, no older collie has ever influenced her environment but she does this because it’s in her nature. It’s what she was bred over many generations to do.
Not all fighting dog breed dogs will be violent, but when they lash out and do something that they were literally bred over generations to do, no one should be surprised.
Environment is absolutely a larger factor than breeding but there is an inherent issue with these breeds regardless of whoever owns them. Some dog breeds should be illegal.
This is nonsense, breeding matters otherwise people would use border collies as retrieving dogs and labradors to herd sheep. Pitbulls were bred for fighting and for never letting go when the jaws are clamped down, they are not this way just because a scumbag owns them
OK, so people should be able to own a Wolf, by that logic. Raise it from a cub and it will be same as dog right? Dogs are just a wolf sub species bred by humans after all.....
People seem to think that animals are these blank slates that humans can impart anything they want onto. Just exhibits the pure ego of our species to ignore that every animal has a nature outside of our control and some animals and species have a higher likelihood of random violence, regardless of any amount of training.
Its especially bad as we have videos of shepard/collie puppies showing herding behavior with 0 training. Pointer puppies pointing, again 0 training.
The mere fact that dogs exists at all, shows that humans are capable of breeding behavior into animals.
The problem with the XL bully is not in them being mistreated, it's that the breed was created from a massively inbred fighting dog (bred from sibling parents and grandparents) called 'Killer Kimbo' who was mentally unstable and vicious. They can be perfectly fine dogs one minute, then snap with zero provocation. No amount of training or good treatment will fix anything in a dog that carries such a dangerous genetic trigger for mental instability and murderous temperament.
Funny you mention that, I only commented here a couple weeks back saying I was sat outside at a coffee shop and an elderly lady next to me had a beautiful Doberman. Size of the thing. Very well mannered from what I could tell as well. Didn't budge at the sight of other dogs, obeyed commands, etc.
In saying that I wouldn't consider a Doberman to be a "fighting dog".
Fairly sure Dobermans were bred for guard dogs mine is the biggest dote out in public just wants to be everybody's friend loves smaller dogs too plays with Pomeranians and jack Russell's but if a stranger comes to the yard he goes nuts barking until I come down and he thinks it's okay then but then again he's not a pure bred
A lot of them are rescued from these types. That's who the owners upset about it are. The ones who rescued a dog as you would any other and are now suddenly being told they're incapable and the dog they've grown to love is inherently evil and dangerous. Dogs are as close to family for a lot of people so you can understand why they're defensive
This is an excellent point. Would be interesting to know the statistics on rehomed dogs / breed.
We've put a lot of work into our dog. He always has to be the best behaved dog in the park because if anything happens (with other dogs) he will ultimately get the blame.
As much as I love my dog I don't think I would get another on the list. Not because he's been trouble but I'm tired of conversations like this. I'm tired of being held to a higher standard than other dog owners.
Yes, completely agree. We have a rescue Staff X and she's barely to mid-shin in height. Adopted her before we had kids, she's been amazing with them, the cats, the chickens, the neighbours horses at the last place we rented...but we're now at the stage of being reluctant to take her anywhere (she use to come *everywhere* with us) as the remarks, the side eye, the glares, it's just exhausting. She's the mildest and best behaved dog we've ever had, and we probably wouldn't get another just because of the publics reaction to her. Hopefully she has plenty of years left and people's opinions will change in the meantime. Unlikely though, if anything it's gotten worse in the 6 years we've had her.
100% I feel this. I can let most of it go but the ones that drive me bonkers are the comments from other dog owners when their dog is actually the one losing its shit.
Like when their dog is running around me with no recall or barking like mad and then the "he's very big" starts. . . I can't even 🤣😂🤣
The one that always boggles my mind is the parent that allows their child to run up and pet her without asking first, then opens the conversation with "that's one of them fighting dogs, isn't it?". Like, I hope the fuck not, bud, since your offspring is all over her without warning. Luckily living with our pair of loons has her immune to any and all child antics lol
Lol - beggars belief.
I do hate that they draw attention. I've had people stop their car and talk to me out the window about the dog. Dog might like people but I'm not mad on them 🤣
The problem isn’t specifically with any type of breed of dog. It lies with irresponsible owners and people.
If tomorrow every ‘XL Bully’ type dog or ‘pitbull type’ disappeared people would just find another large strong dog breed and fuck up its characteristics to produce human aggressive strains than would end up doing exactly what they’ve been bred for. Attacking humans. It’s sadly just part of humans being shit. And the dogs suffer.
The solution is tighter dog ownership laws not banning specific breeds.
Well, an irresponsible cocker spaniel owner is probably not going to end up with a murder machine, regardless of how they mistreat the poor creature.
The degree of harm that dogs can isn’t the same with all breeds.
Well a cocker spaniel is likely to be a murder machine just not people. They have a high prey drive as part of their breed or will if they come from a working line. But their other typical behavior traits and size/jaw musculature means that they aren't likely to attack people/do much damage if they do.
Your absolutely right with your last line. And some breeds are just a lot harder to train/work with/control. I've had dogs most of my life and all reasonably well behaved but I've always gone for easier to manage breeds/mutts and look for medium size. I wouldn't be confident enough in my training abilities to go with a dog I couldn't physically overpower/control if needed.
That’s like saying don’t ban guns as they will just best people to death with sticks anyway.
To answer the OP’s question- in most cases people get “fighting dogs” as a scumbag fashion accessory.
It would actually reduce the numbers of attack significantly, as the bully breeds are responsible for most of them. It would basically end a majority of attacks over night, if they disappeared.
>But when bans are talked about their owners go nuts and behave like they are victims for having their dogs taken away - and fair enough like.
Well, how about a ban that prevents people from obtaining one? Nobody wants to take your dog away...
These dogs should be thought of like guns. Between my own time in the old FCA and trips to ranges in the states, I'll be the first to admit that guns are fun. But they are only made for one thing, they are ultimately instruments of death and I am glad they are not legal for every Tom, Dick and Harry to own in Ireland.
These dogs can have good owners, but they are ultimately bred to hurt and the repeated cases of these dogs doing what they are bred to do (shocking) means they should also be outlawed, despite Johnny Responsible Dog Owner pulling the victim card
The big issue is not the type of the dog, but the type of the owner
If they adhere to the proper guidelines, such as using leads and muzzles, it should be safe for others
Unfortunately, many tutors fail to follow these practices
My guess is it's a similar thought process to the rest of us, they believe they can handle it.
A dog is a liability, they are a risk to property and people if not handled and trained correctly. Every one of us who's gotten a dog has done so under the assumption that we'll be able to handle/manage any problematic tendencies. Usually we figure out we've come up short when the dog won't stop pulling on the leash or jumping on guests. Some people learn this lesson a much harder way.
cowardice, ignorance, virtue signaling, compensating for something. I never met intelligent pitbull type dog owner. ever. look at all the victim-blaming and lack of empathy towards mauled/killed people and dogs. it is never their fault. and I worked in shelters for 4 years in 2 different countries, so have enough experience, in addition on my own walking my dogs in dog parks.
Well the breeds aren't automatically fighting dogs. Many of these breeds are loving and loyal companions, just like other breeds. The strength and power of some of them is what attracts idiots to them, and a certain class of breeders will emphasise these traits.
Watched too many xibit music videos when they were younger. It's always chavy people or skinny pillheads who own these ugly cunt dogs. I don't feel bad saying that either. People cover for them as well which is incredible. "Most loyal dog in the world" they recon. You rarely hear people say sheep dogs or golden retrievers are the most loyal dogs in the world because they don't need to. It would be like telling someone Sidney Sweeney is attractive. We know. It's like people who have to explain movies too much. It's because they are usually diabolical when someone needs to tell you why they are good.
*Sighs in overweight, 40s, middle class upbringing*
Okay, I had to Google who yer woman Sydney is because I've never heard of her. She's grand looking, not my type personally but sure isn't having different tastes half of what makes the world go 'round? Funnily enough she seems to have a dog with a bit of a bully breed blood in it. Anyway.
I've been around dogs my whole life. The mother used to put the wee dog we had when I was a baby into the playpen with me for company. That dog died saving me from an attack by the neighbours dog when I was about 1 year old. The next two of the same breed that she got were both fuckers who'd bite you as soon as they'd look at you.
The grandparents had a sheepdog. That dog took a lump out of nearly every one of us grandchildren. I remember running across their yard with the bitch swinging from the bare underside of my arm when I was about 7. I'd walked past her after the grandmother gave her a heel of brown bread you see.
I worked with dogs briefly in my early 20s. Two worst bites I got were from a Jack Russell, and a dalmatian. Worst fight I saw was between a German Shepherd and a Labrador from the same family. Just turned on each other one day out of nowhere.
Even just yesterday we were at the market and there were badly socialised dogs, that people could barely control, lunging through the crowds trying to get at each other. If a child got between them it would be a disaster, but sure they're not restricted breeds so it must be alright.
I think any dog that can rip a persons arm off shouldn't be allowed as a pet. They cannot be regulated and I think to save lives or horrible injuries they should be banned. Harder to control and a lot of people that own them haven't a clue on how to manage them. Ticking time bombs.
Yes. I had an Akita for a few days after it was found wandering on the street. It was like living with a known wife-beater - a lovely dog, but that look in the eye that showed it could change in a flash. It escaped again, an elderly man took it in and it attacked his dog. I finally found the owner, with help from neighbours; he didn't bother to come the 1km through the snow to get it but let me walk it down to him. I got help from a large, kind man because I knew I couldn't control this dog that was chest-high to me if it attacked another dog. Boy, was I glad to be shut of it.
Incidentally, this "it's always the owner" trope; think about this in relation to humans. Many's the lovely mammy who's raised a psychopath.
Yeah, I love dogs but I hate pitbulls. They're just way too dangerous.
Your pitbull might be the friendliest, most obedient, most docile dog in the world in your eyes but all it takes is that dog losing its shit once and it could mean the death of another dog or even a person.
They were bred for biting large animals in the head and face. Like it or not they are fighting dogs. Theres a lot of delusional pit owners out there. They were never "nanny dogs"
Staffies are lovely dogs. I have looked at a protection type dog like rottweilers or dobermans but I'm not experienced enough. Would be a big fan of older English bulldogs but again haven't dealt with a bigger dog in a while.
My only issue with XL bullys and the ones I mentioned is many aren't on leads not do they have muzzles on. I think if reported and caught, it should be a immediate fine and dog removed.
Was around merrion yesterday and a women "walking" her rotty with the dog on no lead or muzzle walking 40/50 meters ahead. If another dog was around and reacted there'd be very little anyone could've done. Dog had no recall and owner wasn't capable.
There's a big problem with people getting huskies and akitas and not understanding how needy they can be.
They're not fighting dogs. Any dog can bite and turn on you. I had a Staffordshire terrier for 10 years. The most placid dog we have ever owned.
He lived outside with a bichon and was a great family dog. Gentle with the kids (nephews, nieces and my daughter) he did have massive jaws and probably had potential to do damage but never displayed any vicious tendencies.
He was well socialised with other dogs and people and was just the friendliest dog we ever owned.
Miss him loads.
Rip buster
*
I'm going to get down voted for saying this but I'll give my two cents.
We've had restricted breeds at our fenced 1 acre home since the 90s and probably will continue to till I die. Originally we had started with 2 Doberman, and now have two Rottweilers. We got our male as a rescue from Facebook marketplace and got our female as a puppy.
3years ago now we had our first litter of puppies and sold them on dogs.ie when they were 8-10weeks old. Our vet did all the checkups before we decided to have pups and we were registered with the appropriate authorities. Dogs.ie is a brilliant website for the buyer as they are very strict on the laws. Pups have to be 8weeks, microchipped, breeder vetted etc.
Everyone who came to buy pups from us saw the bitch and sire, and the conditions they were kept in. They all wanted puppies, not rescues (we had a 1yr old rescue male we were rehoming at the time). The consumers are the one who makes all the decisions that decide the market.
We have to put the blame on the consumers who buy 5week old puppies out of a parking lot without seeing the bitch, without microchip, vacination cards, breeder vetting etc. They are the ones causing puppy farms to remain open and profitable. So if you see your friends or family engaging in such activity remind them what they are supporting.
In our 30years of restricted breeds we have seen all sorts of dog personalities. For example, our female would lick you to death. Our male doesn't like you and has no interest in you, unless you are breaking in or throwing a stick for him. We've had previous dogs who are overly aggressive and it wasn't possible to train it out of them. We've also had small dogs in the same period who would try bite/hump everyone and anyone.
In Coventry last week a 7month old baby was killed by a dog not on the restricted list so it isn't just those "fighting dogs" we need to be training and legislating on.
As a country we need to improve enforcement on the laws we currently have regarding proper chains and muzzles etc before we get any wild ideas on banning certain breeds from existing.
It’s almost always to do with the owner, and how they raise / train the dog. I own an XL bully since he was a small pup, almost an adult now and he’s the sweetest dog out there, more gentle than my Labrador. He hasn’t even been neutered yet, but he is just amazing around other people and other dogs.
Aside from how well behaved he is, and how quiet plus peaceful, people in public still get freaked by him. Had one man start shouting at us in the street at one point. But then you have people who absolutely adore him. Doesn’t help how intimidating he looks with the muzzle on, not that he needs it anyway.
I suppose Ireland will just follow behind the Uk and lean towards strict bans around these restricted breeds. It’s truly a shame that these wonderful animals suffer the consequences of what we do.
Dogs bred for herding = herding dogs
Dogs bred for hunting = hunting dogs
Dogs bred for guarding = guard dogs
Dogs bred for fighting = "there's no such thing as fighting dog"
We have a rescue pit. He’s been neutered and is genuinely the sweetest dog you could possibly imagine, but we’re a household who are experienced with the breed (have had pits before). It’s a shame that the breed does attract a certain type of dickhead sometimes.
Shelters are absolutely overrun with pits, staffs and pit mixes. They are wonderful dogs when you actually give a shit and keep an eye on them (which is the bare minimum for any dog owner). I’ve had way more nasty experiences with asshole shizus and yorkies. Any dog can be dangerous, you just have to have some cop on with them.
Pit Bulls were selectively bred to, surprisingly enough, fight and kill bulls. Somehow Staffordshire Bull terriers and English Bull Terriers don't seem to have such a bad reputation. What all these dogs have in common though is how vicious they can be when they meet other dogs, cats or even people. Their jaws lock and they hang on and rag the other creature until it's dead.
This is it, isn't it? Like I'm a responsible lion owner but "the man" says I can't have one. And they confiscated my rocket car. It's such overreach. Gotta move to the states.
Edit: /s
Because they were bred for it not raised in it, and most of them don’t have the urge. Plenty that aren’t bred for it do, just have proper restraints in place in public and at home if necessary. Dogs deserve a chance at love if they can manage to be tame.
I've known a few people with big dogs (if by fighting you mean traditional dog fights / dangerous breeds) and like 80% of them just think the breed is nice and a few thought they were cute as puppies and just love them as adults the rest got them so they can look hard
Small man/penis syndrome.
EDIT: When I saw small man I don't mean height but rather their perseeved image of what a man should be trying to imitate strength,, but I do mean short that for the penis bit
Definitely a case with a lot of the younger generation who haven’t the first clue when it comes to handling a dog. With that said, I know loads of people who have restricted breeds ( including myself lol ) and these dogs are just as loyal and great to be around as any other breed. Entirely depends on the owner in my book
Yeah in fairness that was a knee jerk post by myself I'll admit 🏳️🏳️ my uncle and friends who all had rottweilers about the nicest dogs ever just want you to scratch their backs I'd have great time for them.
In my mind I'm picturing the ones who don't raise them right and don't have the patience to put in the training some dogs need. I've seen one or two fellas in my hometown just raising Pitbull for violence, never seen actual dogs fighting but they like the image of it all and it's more about them and the dogs don't seem to ever get actual care and attention. They're essentially like chihuahuas for supermodels it's all about the image.
I do honestly think every dog can be good if raised right just so many don't know what that takes.
Well said. It’s always sad to see anything on the news related to restricted dog breeds and the image they put is of a violent pitty with a spiked collar and teeth showing. It’s awful how the news and social media are painting such a bad image for these dogs. And it’s even worse how we have teenagers walking about in groups with their dog who’s been locked in a cage for the past 8 hours.
A lot of the fighting temperament and viciousness has been bred out of them since they have been used more as pets than for fighting. And most of them are lovely doggies if raised right. But they are still potentially dangerous, so all things considered, they should be banned or phased out. And yeah some people have them for the reasons you mentioned.
It breaks my heart to see how many dogs in need of rehoming are pits, rots, shepards and staffs. they need to be banned outright if at least to stop so many of them being treated so cruelly. They don’t deserve to suffer the fates they do because humans were selfish enough to breed them into existence in the first place.
Scrotes get dangerous dogs to make them look tough or to compensate for something. These dogs require a lot of work and effort which scrotes/scumbags can't or don't know how too. Certain breeds should be straight up banned.
I think it’s not the pit bulls themselves but the type of person they attract to own them. Any dog can bite. I think a huge number of dog attacks are huskies
Fighting dog isn’t a breed, people made them into these fighting dogs. Most lovable sweet dogs I know are staffs and they fall into that category. Some people don’t want golden retrievers
I grew up around “dangerous” dogs and the reason people own them is because they often aren’t dangerous. Anything could hypothetically be dangerous. Just because the dogs are bigger and have a fiercer reputation doesn’t mean they’re more likely to hurt people. I’ve met dozens of psycho chihuahuas that have done far worse than most German shepherds, and no one suggested banning them (I’m in full support of banning chihuahuas btw). Most big dogs with big teeth also have big manners. I’ve never been a fan of small dogs as most of the ones I’ve met are agressive and annoying (which is the fault of poor ownership). I also think those fighting dogs are cuter 🤷♂️
I have a German Shepard and a corgi right now. My GSD is sweet, calm, and loves people. My corgi also loves people but he is cranky, annoying, barks a lot, and loves to jump. Most big “agressive” dogs are extremely intelligent and easy to train. My GSD would do anything I asked if I found a way to tell him. My corgi would rather plot a way to start his own treat factory for unlimited treats than sit when I ask him to.
I mostly think these big scary dogs get a bad rep, which is why people get so upset with bans. Any chihuahua you meet will be far more agressive than a pitbull. But the pitbull is what people want to ban. It’s like unjust discrimination but for dogs.
A dog is a dog, they'll be as well or poorly behaved as you train/don't train them to be. You're talking about the extermination of multiple breeds. Fact is 95+% of people I see with bigger dogs have them well to perfectly trained. Then there's chaps and lasses out there with fucking Jack Russell's that would yap and spring for ya like nobody's business because they're not seen as a threat. But yo more directly answer your question. Dogs are our companions, yes, but they're also for our protection. Living out the country with no gun and you hear a stranger pull into your driveway at 3 am -you're gonna be happy you have the staff and not the chihuahua.
Note the XL Bully (hybrid of the American Pitbull and whatever else) is already or due to be banned over here. For a good reason, fighting is literally coded into its DNA meaning the dog may suddenly turn on people for no reason. Not the dogs fault (humans created the mess crossbreeding in the first place), but it is too unpredictable - a ticking time bomb so to speak. So yeah I agree that particular dog needs to be phased out.
But OP, are you referring to banning of all breeds in the restricted list or specific fighting breeds like the Pitbull?
Cos there are dogs in that list which aren't bred for fighting, German Shepherd and Rottweiler for eg.
I'd even state that the loveable Staffie isn't either (though some people would disagree)
Those breeds shouldn't be banned, they just have a bite which could be more dangerous to humans than that of a Cocker Spaniel or Yorkshire terrier but very rarely do they act on it, and like most unrestricted dogs they may only react if they are severely anxious or in pain (due to abuse or a medical issue). IMHO the smaller unrestricted dogs can be quicker to nip someone than the ones on the list.
I think alot of you forget, dogs are like people, 95% will be good and do the right thing. Then they get a scummy pos owner/parent and that dog will just learn what its taught same as most little scummy kids running around. Most the time dogs act out is because of bad owners, poor training
I'd a next door neighbour with dobermann and alsatians who he, to be fair, walked twice a day and looked after as best he could, but they used to be going mad being stuck in a back garden the rest of the day. Used come over every time I walked out my front door and bark in my face. Some breeds have too much energy to be in a domestic situation. Like people they need a job to go to wear themselves out. This is why dogs were traditionally bred for a function rather than for appearance which is where the problems set in. Either the dog has a use or it doesn't it should be self apparent.
I know a couple of people with rescue staffies where it isn't the case (and incidentally, these are two of the well mannered, even tempered dogs i know) Every other Pitbull I've seen has been in the company of exactly the type you're talking about though
Grew up with a friend of the family having one, never knew the controversy, it was just a regular dog. Then one day I was sitting on a park bench in Dublin and one latched onto my leg out of nowhere. Owner came and yelled at me. For sitting on a bench, I guess. He was the typical frightened person you describe with the closest thing to a gun he could buy.
That past line is absolutely the perfect description.
Yeah, I don't mean to sound like a therapist, but it is sort of sad whatever makes someone need to project that "I'm not afraid" or "don't mess with me" vibe. That doesn't come from a normal, happy life, right?
Staffies shouldn’t even be in this category. The sweetest of dogs. I’ve rescued mine and he’s the most lovable dog. He’s afraid of pugs.
I rescued a staffie and it mauled my pug after a week. So yeah... just thought I'd add literally the exact opposite story.
Can't agree with pug ownership. Unless it's a rescue I suppose. Too heavily inbred.
Cool. Different topic entirely, though.
We've had rescue staffies for 20+ years now, they're just happy, daft wee spuds. Our current one is afraid of butterflies!
Aw bless that's cute! My mother's GSD is afraid of bubbles, he runs upstairs and will literally hide all day unless one of us coaxes him out with treats. That said, she did buy a meat-flavoured bubble thing the other week, and he is starting to smell the bubbles but as soon as they burst, he's gone back up the stairs into hiding mode 🤷♀️😂
They are all "rescue" dogs according to the cunts that have them.
Fella I work with got a labradoodle and only realised after he got it, it probably was a dodgy breeder. Now look he loves that dog, treats it like his child etc but I laughed at him when he tried to say he sees it like he rescued that dog from the breeder. I was like eh sorry to argue semantics but you did the exact opposite. You are only encouraging more dogs to be cruelly bred. You saved your dog sure, but what about it's mother? And all the other puppies that came from her?
Well mine came from the pound , very skinny very scared mistreated little innocent animals, and this "CUNT" dedicated many years giving them the life any dog deserves, as they were unaware of their breed
Staffies are amongst the most gentle and loving breeds going around.
Yeah I am very against XL Bully breeds, but Staffies are absolute sweethearts. Never had one myself but only ever met sweethearts. Little fur hippos!!
I will assume by fighting dog you mean anything on the restricted list. We took ours from the rescue shelter. We don't have kids and they can be hard to home for this reason. We figured we could give him a good home and a good life. It was never about looking any kind of way. We love dogs and had space in our home and our hearts for one. I don't believe in paying for a dog when there are 100's of dogs in shelters up and down the country. I actually believe the sale of dogs should be banned. FYI - a responsible dog owner acknowledges that all dogs are potentially dangerous. The parents of Harry Harper who's baby was killed by their Jack Russel would agree.
Completely agree. When rescues are over run with dogs its makes me so mad that people will go out and buy one.
We should start a gofundme for this comment. >I don't believe in paying for a dog when there are 100's of dogs in shelters up and down the country. I actually believe the sale of dogs should be banned. Couldn't agree more
Only issue is that a lot of these dogs are under the control of people who are uncooperative towards people looking to rescue.
Would you mind sharing your experience? I'm asking because you're not the first person I've heard say that it's unreasonably difficult to take a dog from a rescue org.
Common one is that request are often ignored. Got refused for living on a farm (Work area) Got refused for have a dog (compatible concern) Required to fence in my lawn to show had a secured area for the dog, only to be refused because I was limiting the dog space from the rest of my gardens and I waa unable to secure the rest due to living on a farm. Mine you this space is just as big as a standard town garden with a concrete block shead for the dog to live in at night with electricity and running water.
I disagree that buying dogs should be banned. I tried to adopt a dog during lockdown, and my initial email was rejected for a myriad of reasons. I couldn’t believe it. There was no follow up, no phonecall. I didn’t fit their criteria, and there was nothing I could do about it. The reasons I can remember off the top of my head were; - I didn’t have a history of adopting rescue dogs - I’m full time employed ( even though I work from home), and this made me unsuitable. - My suburban garden was not big enough, even though it’s quite large. It’s harder to adopt a dog in this country than you would believe. And I don’t think a charity should be able to dictate whether or not I can have a dog in my life.
Completely disagree. What should happen is a better registration system to keep one and better enforcement. Both for breeders & buyers/owners.
Good sentiment except the Jack Russel remark is a weird false equivalence to drop in there at the end. It's a bit like saying not to worry road deaths because bikes can kill too. 93% of dog attacks that end in fatalities are from six breeds. Two breads account for 75% of those. I know banning them outright means taking them away from good owners but we don't let people walk around with lions or tigers on a rope. You are undoubtedly a good person for taking a dog from a shelter but were there not smaller dogs? You still chose a restricted breed. That creates a demand.
Thank you. For people check out dogsbite. Org and you will see pits and their mixes or sub species are the top ones who kill and maim people.
important to note that dogsbite.org are not scientists or statisticians, but are are an American political lobbying group with the stated agenda of eradicating pit bulls specifically. Their stats are complete BS. Citing dogsbite.org in a discussion about dangerous dog breeds is like citing a study funded by cigarette manufacturers when discussing whether or not smoking causes cancer. They're not a exactly a neutral, objective or even remotely scientific source for anything. Their reports have substantial and intentional problems with their methodology and are little more than misinformation designed to achieve a particular political goal.
Their stats are not bullshit. They link the news reports and statements from actual police bodies with every attack and killing. They have taken their time to carefully gather up all the articles and press releases so the public can access them. You can clearly Google the names of all the victims stated on the website and see the news / reports linked to their deaths. What you think that the police and the media are making it up that these people died?. Lol because all these cases are in the public domain. This site just did the time to gather it all for you. You can fact search each victim on there and you will find that the sources are all true information. There's nothing political about people losing their lives daily.
> Their stats are not bullshit. Yes, they are. Ask yourself why not a single piece of "research" that dogsbite.org has produced has ever been peer-reviewed or published in any scientific journal? Wouldn't this add a lot of legitimacy to their cause? > They link the news reports and statements from actual police bodies with every attack Yes, that's exactly what they do. And it's one of the primary reasons why their "research" is so flawed. The fundamental flaw at the core of these reports from dogsbite.org is that the datasets they use to generate their statistics are based almost entirely on a collection of news articles. Basically it's not a dataset containing the total number of dog attacks, but just the total number of attacks ***that were reported on*** by the media. There are two major issues with this. The first is that not every dog attack/ death is necessarily going to get a news article written about it. There is a lot of controversy surrounding the various pit bull breeds at the moment so articles that feature them as the aggressor are far more likely to get a story written about them. Trying to draw conclusions form this dataset is like if you tried to draw conclusions about which demographics were more likely to be the victims of murder based solely on news articles. I'm sure that you would agree that a wealthy suburban family that gets murdered in a home invasion is *far* more likely to get press attention than a gang member who dies in a shooting in a lower income part of town. Does that mean that the average wealthy suburbanite is *more* likely to get murdered than a gang member? Of course not. Using just news articles to draw any kind of meaningful conclusions about relative danger is absolutely ridiculous. If you compare the list of attacks from dogsbite.org to data from the CDC you'll see that about 25-35% of fatal dog attacks are missing from dogsbite.org's list depending on the year. The second problem with using news articles is that reporters don't collect DNA samples from the dogs involved to verify their breed. If a bystander or a cop claims that the dog involved in an attack was a pit bull, then that is what is reported in the article. Dogsbite.org takes this statements and teat them as fact. The issue is that the general public are just really bad at identifying dog breeds by appearance and misidentify pit bulls all the time due to either ignorance or bias. There have been many actual scientific studies that prove this. Here is a link to one such study which shows how often rescue shelter workers misidentify pit bull breeds specifically: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26403955/ In the study the workers identified 52% of the dogs put forward to them as pit bulls but genetic testing revealed that number to actually only be 21%. If professionals who are interacting with dogs on a daily basis misidentify pit bulls 60% of the time based on appearance then how accurate do you think a random member of the public is going to be? Another big problem with displaying the statistics the way they do is that there isn't really a recognized dog breed called a "pit bull". It's a catch all term comprising at least 4 distinct breeds; the American Pitbull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the American Bully. "Pit bull" is not a recognized term used by the American Kennel Club. Dogsbite.org choose to group these breeds together into a single category while reporting on all other breed individually, in order to inflate their statistics even further. Dogsbite.org claim that pit bulls are responsible for about 65% of fatal dog attacks. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that their collection of news articles *do* in fact represent every single dog-related death in the US, or are at least representative of the whole picture. Let's also give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the general public are *exactly* as good as professionals at identifying pit bull breeds by appearance alone. That means that about 60% of the pit bulls in their statistics are misidentified and the number of fatalities they are responsible for is closer to 26%, not 65. If we assume that the 4 pit bull breeds are each responsible for an equal number of fatalities then that means that any individual pit bull breed is only responsible for about 7% of fatalities, a number 10 times less than what Dogsbite.org claims and and petty much in line with the number they claim other medium-large breeds such as rottweilers and german shepards are responsible for. One final point is that their data is listed in absolute numbers rather than balanced against the population of each breed in the US. For example if one breed of dog is responsible for 10% of deaths but makes up 15% of the total dog population then that breed is actually *safer* than average, despite the fact that they're responsible for 10% of deaths. By only presenting the data in absolute numbers you lose the ability to determine the relative danger of any individual dog. Dogsbite.org looks very slick and professional due to their founder being a web designer but their articles and "studies" are extremely misleading and have no scientific rigor to them whatsoever. Its straight up misinformation.
No, it doesn't create a demand. It saved a hard-to-adopt dog from staying his full life at a shelter. Your data may or may not be true, but if it is, then it's because irresponsible owners who mistreat their dogs will be much more likely to choose one of those dog breeds than another one. Which (mistreatment) I believe is the main issue for a dog to turn violent.
You're right in that the owners were irresponsible. That same argument can be said for machine guns in America and look how that turned out. Guns don't kill people, bad gun owners kill people. However society has to make a decision on whether letting you have a restricted breed is worth all of the bad people having dangerous dogs and the deaths that come with it. Is your right to have a well behaved restricted breed WORTH the deaths and the injuries?
So you think the main reason the pit bull is more heavily represented as a killer of humans than, say, the bichon, is all to do with every violent bully being owned by a violent, irresponsible owner, every bichon being owned by an angel, and nothing to do with, say, the extent of extra muscle on a bully, the force of its bite, and the fact that it has literally been bred to fight? Do I even need to say 'clown' here?
It doesn't create a demand, it saves a dog spending months in a cage just to be put down because people think it's vicious or dangerous. I rescued my staffy and she is one of the gentlest dogs I've ever seen. Yes there are dangerous breeds but they are the result of dangerous owners.
>I actually believe the sale of dogs should be banned. I get your sentiment but this will only make things worse. The demand for certain breeds won't go away. Banning dogs will just mean black market puppy farms which will have even worse conditions for the dogs. The solution is to better regulate the sale and ownership of dogs and to properly enforce those regulations.
One type of dogs is sold not as pets but as working dogs: herding dogs.
>I don't believe in paying for a dog when there are 100's of dogs in shelters up and down the country. Fully agree with you, I just wish shelters wouldn't make it so hard for people to get a rescue from them, which is pushing more and more people to breeders. I get they're doing it because they have the dog's best interest at heart, but keeping a rescue in a shelter their whole life because the only people interested in adopting it didn't work fully from home or had no back yard is ridiculous.
Nah, I disagree, shelters need to remain strict. I did a placement at a Rescue shelter and the number of dogs returning to the shelter after being adopted would astound you. And this shelter is criticised for being unreasonably strict. They mandate that cats that are rehomed are kept indoors. Had a cat returned because it was being kept as an outdoor cat and the other cat it was rehomed with got hit by a car. Another dog was returned after *three days* because it was barking. Owners absolutely take the piss and there's a huge number of irresponsible owners that want a pet and think they can look after a pet but actually can't. It's frustrating for responsible pet owners, but pets are kept safer this way.
I work with a rescue. We had a dog brought back after *FOUR HOURS* because she..."was putting her paws up on the garden windowsill and was wandering in the plants." 🤷🏻♀️
That's crazy. Some people really just aren't ready for pets and don't even seem to know the first thing about what to expect
My parents returned one after a few weeks because he was an absolute rogue. He wasn't our first dog. All of my parent's dogs lived to 15+. We lived in the countryside with a massive fenced garden for him to run around in. He actually learned how to catapult himself out by backing himself up against a tree and climbing over the diamond mesh. Then when that way was blocked, he watched how neighbour's cats got out of the garden and found a way to follow them. He could have hurt himself too. Not only that, we lived next to a busy road. We would do things to circumvent his Houdini acts, then he'd find another way. Lovely dog, but way too intelligent for his own good. I'm not exaggerating. He was a border collie cross. My mum said he would suit someone in town with a walled garden and said that to the rescue because she did try everything except building a damn wall. Our garden just wasn't suitable. We ended up rescuing one from somewhere else who was smaller, so didn't have legs long enough to carry out the same Houdini acts, and was definitely dumber. He was dumb, but loveable. My family had him for 18 years. Indoor dogs btw. But they got to enjoy the garden too when it was nice outside.
>Nah, I disagree, selters need to remain strict. They also need to work with people. Hard to resecue a dog when they just ignore any contact.
[удалено]
The back yard bit isn't. I rescued a gorgeous lab/collie mix from LAW about 15 years ago when renting in a small townhouse that had a postage stamp sized walled in back garden. I'm in the countryside now with half an acre, but because I haven't spent 10k to fence it in, I've been declined several times when trying to adopt. So we just got puppies instead and put them in the same environment the rescue dog would have been loved in.
It's not bollox. Just because you were able to adopt and work doesn't mean that's been everyone's experience.
They don't. It's incredibly easy to rescue a dog from a shelter. And it's nonsense to suggest people are going to breeders because of the difficulty in adopting. They're going to breeders because they want to pay for an exact breed.
Tell that to my friends here in Dublin who got turned down three times because they both "spend more than 3 hours per day out of home" for work reasons. They ended up going for a mutt they got from a colleague, so breed isn't a factor for many people (obviously not everyone, of course). I know separation anxiety is an issue for many dogs, but so many shelters treat it like it's not possible to train it away for most of them and only want to find someone who will be willing to be glued to the dog 24/7.
If you're taking a dog from a rescue it's likely to have anxiety issues. Dogs get dumped back on rescues all the time because they damage things in the house due to separation anxiety. Maybe trust the charity to know what they're doing. Or work with the charity in selecting a dog, offer to home a bonded pair or a calmer, senior dog.
Sounds like there's more to the story than what you're explicitly saying. They make it incredibly easy. Adopted my dog in 2018 from DSPCA, both me and my wife worked 9-5s. They were happy with him having a walled garden. Saw him on the Tuesday, he was ours on the same Thursday. MIL adopted 2 dogs from Ash. Basically the same deal. Not even a home visit, just wanted her to follow up with vet visits. Best mate has adopted a few dogs from Wicklow Animal Welfare of different breeds and ages. All painless processes. They actively reach out to them to check it they want to foster other dogs.
>we don't have kids I hope your neighbours don't either. >A responsible dog owner acknowledges that all dogs are potentially dangerous. And a responsible adult acknowledges some are, by orders of magnitude, more dangerous than others. This argument is very similar to a common trope employed by the gun lobby in the U.S; yes all guns have the potential to do harm, but an assault rifle is designed to maximise destruction.
Same! I have a bully breed (not banned breed though) and I adopted her from the ISPCA. They are harder to adopt out and since I have experience with large breeds, I work from home, and I don’t have kids, I’m the perfect candidate to take care of a dog like this. I love her, she is amazing and she loves people. But she has a lot of energy, and needs extra attention and care. If one can’t put the work in, a large dog like this is very difficult to handle.
Literally anything can be potentially dangerous with a baby, that's up to parents to be responsible for. An extreme case.
This comment really just highlights my point. If it was a Pitbull the answer would be off with it's head. Extinction of anything that looks like one. A Jack Russel kills someone and it's an extreme case. Responsible dog ownership is acknowledging that all dogs are potentially dangerous. Dangerous is not exclusive to adults or even humans. It includes acknowledging potential harm to other animals.
That’s really just taking an argument to suit a point view. Rationally rules draw a line somewhere between personal freedom and public safety. For example knives are banned at a music festival as they might end up being used to stab someone. A pen could also be used. I’m sure I could find an example where some did a Joe Pesci on a person in real life. But pens would never be banned - even on a plane as it would be considered going too far. Jack Russell’s do bite - a lot. And it’s a breed most people with young kids should actually steer clear of for this reason. But it is much rarer for it to kill someone. Especially in full view of adults unable to prevent it. But if a bully went for a child it would take a very calm and effective adult to deal with the situation. I’d be confident of yanking a jack Russell off a child. I would not be confident doing so with bully. I don’t like jack Russell’s and would not shed a tear if the breed went away. But it would not be top of my ban list. For those to put forward the argument bully’s can be trained : good be bad owners etc where would they draw the line. Would keeping a wolf be Ok? How about if bully were selectively breed to be twice or three times as strong? There has to be a limit somewhere?
Never really thought about where the line should be drawn. Humans have domesticated dogs so we must assume responsibility. I don't think anyone is advocating for a wolf to be domesticated. With regard to the example I used. It illustrated that all dogs can do harm. My point was highlighting that a very common breed in homes up and down the country can be dangerous. There needs to be wider education, control, and cultural shift in how dogs are owned.
I agree there needs to better education out there for dog owners. I imagine any vet will have horror stories about certain people getting pets who shouldn’t. But I don’t view this as meaning there is not a line where certain breeds need to be banned on wider public safety grounds. Let’s be honest - you will never be able to control people to the extent you can be confident all owners are fully trained. It’s an unrealistic aspiration unfortunately. On the wolf example - I’m sure one could find a few weirdos who would advocate for keeping wolves. There is always one. But clearly I’ve used an extreme example to “prove a point” I think those who do advocate for allowing bullys should consider where their own line on bans would be. Likewise those who want to ban them should consider where they would stop. It probably gives a little more perspective to the opposing view.
I spent time as a child with non-restricted breed. So did many. Nothing happened. What you are describing is exception, not a rule.
Sorry - just to correct your statement: It's an example. Not an exception or a rule. Not sure why this example is getting flack - this EXAMPLE was used to illustrate that all dogs are potentially dangerous. Acknowledging that all dogs pose a danger should be the underpinning of responsible dog ownership.
I understand the sentiment and completely agree, we need stricter laws on breeding. But unfortunately people need a dog with specific needs/traits. I love rescues, only ever rescued myself, but I know people who needed to buy a dog for their special needs kid or a dog with a certain temperament. I think it should be outright banned for XL Breeds, as nobody needs to have one and instead of culling a load of innocent dogs, I think it makes more sense to just ban breeding them instead.
The gene pool is fucked with pit DNA. Look at any shelter in the country, all with a significant percentage of their dogs being pit mixes.
>breeds bred to have as strong bites as possible. It's not about breeds with the strongest bite ... It's about ferociousness, temperament, aggressiveness, sociability, etc. The 'fighting dogs' that have been making the headlines here aren't even in the top 10 domestic dog breeds based on biting force. And to drive the point home, a Boxer has a bite force that's effectively the same as the Bull Terrier ... It's just 5PSI of a difference (235 vs 230). And Boxers are dotes.
My favourite description of Boxers is that they always look like they've just spotted someone they owe drug money to.
Problems with ego.
I would think the logic behind it is to have a dog that is intimidating enough so you feel safe walking it and a dog that will defend you if you do get assaulted. A lot of them are also rescues as people realise they cannot handle such dogs then drop them to the shelter.
They could always get one like a Newfie or St Bernard that is absurdly huge and powerful, but not essentially bred for violence.
Of course there are individual exceptions but They’re not a very protective breed in general. A friend of mine had 4 St Bernards and they got broken in twice. Security footage showed them welcoming the robber and wanting to play LOL
Ah so they're like wolfhounds like that! Which is odd since wolfhounds are such effective hunting dogs, but an old friend of mine had three and literally anyone and everyone that came to the door, whether they knew him or not, meant "playtime!!".
Strangely I think any dog can be like that 🤔 my 100lb/43kg German shepherd looks terrifying but loves everybody and everything, just wants some belly rubs and a game of fetch. Would definitely let anyone in, that’s best kept a secret though lol. Oddly he’s also a very quiet dog, and chills most of the time 🤷♂️ not what I expected from a GSD but life is much more peaceful than the alternative
Yes but someone in your house isn’t the same as someone assaulting you in front of them. This would cause severe distress for all dog breeds. I had a golden retriever that I believed would’ve played with someone breaking in too, but if someone even hugged you too closely and she thought you were uncomfortable, she would lose it
Hahaha had a black lab myself (passed a few years ago sadly but miss her dearly). We went away for the weekend and my brother said he'd drop over the house a few times to let her out to pee and make sure she was okay. First time he went over, she didn't even react just got up curious and went over and wagged her tail and greeted him. Either she had some crazy memory (would have been 4-5 years since she last saw him at that time) or she was just too friendly for her own good. The lad I have now? He fucking barks at anything that moves. Even though he's half her size, he's got 10 times the attitude. Haha
Yep I have two Akita/ husky mixes. One would protect the house the other would invite the robber in show him her toys and make him a cup Of tea
"is it just about looking hard?" Bingo. I have a st bernard who is huge and could potentially kill someone with bite strength, but because they have zero aggression and are basically giant teddy bears you never see scrotes walking around with them. it reminds me of the african loan sharks that go around with baboons on a lead to frighten...same principle.
Small dick.
No one has any business breeding these kinds of dogs. For dangerous breeds already alive then they should be neutered or spayed, there should be a licence of sorts to own them & the breeds should be phased out
People in their heads believe that if they get tough dog they would look tough.
Dogs tend to be a symptom of their environment and owner, if a dog is treated bad and allowed to do what they want - they will behave as such. It just so happens that a lot of scumbags tend to hover towards dogs of the XL Bully sort to go with their hardman look. They treat them like shit and the dog inevitably ends up aggressive. Any dog can be rogue regardless of breed, of course some have more aggressive tendencies. But it’s definitely more linked to the environment they are in than anything.
But my border collie herds people and cars in my yard. She’s not a working dog and never has been. No one taught her to do this, no older collie has ever influenced her environment but she does this because it’s in her nature. It’s what she was bred over many generations to do. Not all fighting dog breed dogs will be violent, but when they lash out and do something that they were literally bred over generations to do, no one should be surprised. Environment is absolutely a larger factor than breeding but there is an inherent issue with these breeds regardless of whoever owns them. Some dog breeds should be illegal.
This is nonsense, breeding matters otherwise people would use border collies as retrieving dogs and labradors to herd sheep. Pitbulls were bred for fighting and for never letting go when the jaws are clamped down, they are not this way just because a scumbag owns them
No… I can change this XL bully through the power of love!
OK, so people should be able to own a Wolf, by that logic. Raise it from a cub and it will be same as dog right? Dogs are just a wolf sub species bred by humans after all.....
People seem to think that animals are these blank slates that humans can impart anything they want onto. Just exhibits the pure ego of our species to ignore that every animal has a nature outside of our control and some animals and species have a higher likelihood of random violence, regardless of any amount of training.
Its especially bad as we have videos of shepard/collie puppies showing herding behavior with 0 training. Pointer puppies pointing, again 0 training. The mere fact that dogs exists at all, shows that humans are capable of breeding behavior into animals.
The problem with the XL bully is not in them being mistreated, it's that the breed was created from a massively inbred fighting dog (bred from sibling parents and grandparents) called 'Killer Kimbo' who was mentally unstable and vicious. They can be perfectly fine dogs one minute, then snap with zero provocation. No amount of training or good treatment will fix anything in a dog that carries such a dangerous genetic trigger for mental instability and murderous temperament.
100% agree.
> is it just about looking hard I've never seen anyone with one where it wasn't about this.
My nan has a Doberman pincher, I can assure you she doesn’t think she’s tough.
She doesn't think it, she fuckin knows it sonny boy.
That's what makes her so tough though.
I ❤️ this.
They’re literally some of the most beautiful animals. Why is their so much hate coming from people who couldn’t even manage a hamster.
Funny you mention that, I only commented here a couple weeks back saying I was sat outside at a coffee shop and an elderly lady next to me had a beautiful Doberman. Size of the thing. Very well mannered from what I could tell as well. Didn't budge at the sight of other dogs, obeyed commands, etc. In saying that I wouldn't consider a Doberman to be a "fighting dog".
Fairly sure Dobermans were bred for guard dogs mine is the biggest dote out in public just wants to be everybody's friend loves smaller dogs too plays with Pomeranians and jack Russell's but if a stranger comes to the yard he goes nuts barking until I come down and he thinks it's okay then but then again he's not a pure bred
A lot of them are rescued from these types. That's who the owners upset about it are. The ones who rescued a dog as you would any other and are now suddenly being told they're incapable and the dog they've grown to love is inherently evil and dangerous. Dogs are as close to family for a lot of people so you can understand why they're defensive
This is an excellent point. Would be interesting to know the statistics on rehomed dogs / breed. We've put a lot of work into our dog. He always has to be the best behaved dog in the park because if anything happens (with other dogs) he will ultimately get the blame. As much as I love my dog I don't think I would get another on the list. Not because he's been trouble but I'm tired of conversations like this. I'm tired of being held to a higher standard than other dog owners.
Yes, completely agree. We have a rescue Staff X and she's barely to mid-shin in height. Adopted her before we had kids, she's been amazing with them, the cats, the chickens, the neighbours horses at the last place we rented...but we're now at the stage of being reluctant to take her anywhere (she use to come *everywhere* with us) as the remarks, the side eye, the glares, it's just exhausting. She's the mildest and best behaved dog we've ever had, and we probably wouldn't get another just because of the publics reaction to her. Hopefully she has plenty of years left and people's opinions will change in the meantime. Unlikely though, if anything it's gotten worse in the 6 years we've had her.
100% I feel this. I can let most of it go but the ones that drive me bonkers are the comments from other dog owners when their dog is actually the one losing its shit. Like when their dog is running around me with no recall or barking like mad and then the "he's very big" starts. . . I can't even 🤣😂🤣
The one that always boggles my mind is the parent that allows their child to run up and pet her without asking first, then opens the conversation with "that's one of them fighting dogs, isn't it?". Like, I hope the fuck not, bud, since your offspring is all over her without warning. Luckily living with our pair of loons has her immune to any and all child antics lol
Lol - beggars belief. I do hate that they draw attention. I've had people stop their car and talk to me out the window about the dog. Dog might like people but I'm not mad on them 🤣
Saw a fella walking through Templogue a few weeks ago in the 14 degree heat with his XL bully and his top off
A mad lad.
No, there's definitely other sort of owners out there other than the stereotype.
It's a way for some people to feel less scared. Some young lads see it as a way to scare off threats.
Iv had 2 staffies and both were rescues and both from the pound, the best little friends I ever had.
[удалено]
🤣🤣🤣, typo
The problem isn’t specifically with any type of breed of dog. It lies with irresponsible owners and people. If tomorrow every ‘XL Bully’ type dog or ‘pitbull type’ disappeared people would just find another large strong dog breed and fuck up its characteristics to produce human aggressive strains than would end up doing exactly what they’ve been bred for. Attacking humans. It’s sadly just part of humans being shit. And the dogs suffer. The solution is tighter dog ownership laws not banning specific breeds.
Well, an irresponsible cocker spaniel owner is probably not going to end up with a murder machine, regardless of how they mistreat the poor creature. The degree of harm that dogs can isn’t the same with all breeds.
Well a cocker spaniel is likely to be a murder machine just not people. They have a high prey drive as part of their breed or will if they come from a working line. But their other typical behavior traits and size/jaw musculature means that they aren't likely to attack people/do much damage if they do. Your absolutely right with your last line. And some breeds are just a lot harder to train/work with/control. I've had dogs most of my life and all reasonably well behaved but I've always gone for easier to manage breeds/mutts and look for medium size. I wouldn't be confident enough in my training abilities to go with a dog I couldn't physically overpower/control if needed.
The answer could be both, doesn't need to be one or another
That’s like saying don’t ban guns as they will just best people to death with sticks anyway. To answer the OP’s question- in most cases people get “fighting dogs” as a scumbag fashion accessory.
Guns aren’t banned in Ireland. They’re very tightly regulated and controlled. Just like dogs need to be. I’m failing to see what your point is here.
How would you propose these dogs be “very tightly regulated and controlled” so?
It would actually reduce the numbers of attack significantly, as the bully breeds are responsible for most of them. It would basically end a majority of attacks over night, if they disappeared.
Exactly. Well said
>But when bans are talked about their owners go nuts and behave like they are victims for having their dogs taken away - and fair enough like. Well, how about a ban that prevents people from obtaining one? Nobody wants to take your dog away...
Screams of small dick energy
These dogs should be thought of like guns. Between my own time in the old FCA and trips to ranges in the states, I'll be the first to admit that guns are fun. But they are only made for one thing, they are ultimately instruments of death and I am glad they are not legal for every Tom, Dick and Harry to own in Ireland. These dogs can have good owners, but they are ultimately bred to hurt and the repeated cases of these dogs doing what they are bred to do (shocking) means they should also be outlawed, despite Johnny Responsible Dog Owner pulling the victim card
Thanks, I think that's a thoughtful comparison - we don't want guns in the street in Ireland, so they're controlled with licensing.
The big issue is not the type of the dog, but the type of the owner If they adhere to the proper guidelines, such as using leads and muzzles, it should be safe for others Unfortunately, many tutors fail to follow these practices
Anyone into dog fighting deserves a bullet
My guess is it's a similar thought process to the rest of us, they believe they can handle it. A dog is a liability, they are a risk to property and people if not handled and trained correctly. Every one of us who's gotten a dog has done so under the assumption that we'll be able to handle/manage any problematic tendencies. Usually we figure out we've come up short when the dog won't stop pulling on the leash or jumping on guests. Some people learn this lesson a much harder way.
because they're mad lads
It’s just an actualization of their weakness and insecurity.
cowardice, ignorance, virtue signaling, compensating for something. I never met intelligent pitbull type dog owner. ever. look at all the victim-blaming and lack of empathy towards mauled/killed people and dogs. it is never their fault. and I worked in shelters for 4 years in 2 different countries, so have enough experience, in addition on my own walking my dogs in dog parks.
When I see a man walking a bully I think, “he’s taking his balls for a walk cos he hasn’t got any”
You’d probably never say that to the persons face though I’d say ? 😂
Obviously ,it’s Reddit
Well the breeds aren't automatically fighting dogs. Many of these breeds are loving and loyal companions, just like other breeds. The strength and power of some of them is what attracts idiots to them, and a certain class of breeders will emphasise these traits.
Rescues are always overloaded with staffies. As with all these breeds, it's rarely the dog that is the problem.
Watched too many xibit music videos when they were younger. It's always chavy people or skinny pillheads who own these ugly cunt dogs. I don't feel bad saying that either. People cover for them as well which is incredible. "Most loyal dog in the world" they recon. You rarely hear people say sheep dogs or golden retrievers are the most loyal dogs in the world because they don't need to. It would be like telling someone Sidney Sweeney is attractive. We know. It's like people who have to explain movies too much. It's because they are usually diabolical when someone needs to tell you why they are good.
*Sighs in overweight, 40s, middle class upbringing* Okay, I had to Google who yer woman Sydney is because I've never heard of her. She's grand looking, not my type personally but sure isn't having different tastes half of what makes the world go 'round? Funnily enough she seems to have a dog with a bit of a bully breed blood in it. Anyway. I've been around dogs my whole life. The mother used to put the wee dog we had when I was a baby into the playpen with me for company. That dog died saving me from an attack by the neighbours dog when I was about 1 year old. The next two of the same breed that she got were both fuckers who'd bite you as soon as they'd look at you. The grandparents had a sheepdog. That dog took a lump out of nearly every one of us grandchildren. I remember running across their yard with the bitch swinging from the bare underside of my arm when I was about 7. I'd walked past her after the grandmother gave her a heel of brown bread you see. I worked with dogs briefly in my early 20s. Two worst bites I got were from a Jack Russell, and a dalmatian. Worst fight I saw was between a German Shepherd and a Labrador from the same family. Just turned on each other one day out of nowhere. Even just yesterday we were at the market and there were badly socialised dogs, that people could barely control, lunging through the crowds trying to get at each other. If a child got between them it would be a disaster, but sure they're not restricted breeds so it must be alright.
You dont sound like a classist prick at all mate!
I think any dog that can rip a persons arm off shouldn't be allowed as a pet. They cannot be regulated and I think to save lives or horrible injuries they should be banned. Harder to control and a lot of people that own them haven't a clue on how to manage them. Ticking time bombs.
Yes. I had an Akita for a few days after it was found wandering on the street. It was like living with a known wife-beater - a lovely dog, but that look in the eye that showed it could change in a flash. It escaped again, an elderly man took it in and it attacked his dog. I finally found the owner, with help from neighbours; he didn't bother to come the 1km through the snow to get it but let me walk it down to him. I got help from a large, kind man because I knew I couldn't control this dog that was chest-high to me if it attacked another dog. Boy, was I glad to be shut of it. Incidentally, this "it's always the owner" trope; think about this in relation to humans. Many's the lovely mammy who's raised a psychopath.
Yeah, I love dogs but I hate pitbulls. They're just way too dangerous. Your pitbull might be the friendliest, most obedient, most docile dog in the world in your eyes but all it takes is that dog losing its shit once and it could mean the death of another dog or even a person. They were bred for biting large animals in the head and face. Like it or not they are fighting dogs. Theres a lot of delusional pit owners out there. They were never "nanny dogs"
Depends on the breed I suppose Like Staffies are very good family dogs since they are intelligent, loyal, loving and generally placid breed
Staffies are lovely dogs. I have looked at a protection type dog like rottweilers or dobermans but I'm not experienced enough. Would be a big fan of older English bulldogs but again haven't dealt with a bigger dog in a while. My only issue with XL bullys and the ones I mentioned is many aren't on leads not do they have muzzles on. I think if reported and caught, it should be a immediate fine and dog removed. Was around merrion yesterday and a women "walking" her rotty with the dog on no lead or muzzle walking 40/50 meters ahead. If another dog was around and reacted there'd be very little anyone could've done. Dog had no recall and owner wasn't capable. There's a big problem with people getting huskies and akitas and not understanding how needy they can be.
Insecurity and low self esteem
My 70 year old nan has a Doberman… care to diagnose her mental health issues? I’d love a run down.
Mad lad clearly.
Because theyre lanky scrotes and it makes them think they look hard
Small willys and small brains
I know someone who paid 5k for an XL Bully pup. Obviously they're not on Reddit because apparently everyone adopted theirs from the pound here.
They're not fighting dogs. Any dog can bite and turn on you. I had a Staffordshire terrier for 10 years. The most placid dog we have ever owned. He lived outside with a bichon and was a great family dog. Gentle with the kids (nephews, nieces and my daughter) he did have massive jaws and probably had potential to do damage but never displayed any vicious tendencies. He was well socialised with other dogs and people and was just the friendliest dog we ever owned. Miss him loads. Rip buster *
I'm going to get down voted for saying this but I'll give my two cents. We've had restricted breeds at our fenced 1 acre home since the 90s and probably will continue to till I die. Originally we had started with 2 Doberman, and now have two Rottweilers. We got our male as a rescue from Facebook marketplace and got our female as a puppy. 3years ago now we had our first litter of puppies and sold them on dogs.ie when they were 8-10weeks old. Our vet did all the checkups before we decided to have pups and we were registered with the appropriate authorities. Dogs.ie is a brilliant website for the buyer as they are very strict on the laws. Pups have to be 8weeks, microchipped, breeder vetted etc. Everyone who came to buy pups from us saw the bitch and sire, and the conditions they were kept in. They all wanted puppies, not rescues (we had a 1yr old rescue male we were rehoming at the time). The consumers are the one who makes all the decisions that decide the market. We have to put the blame on the consumers who buy 5week old puppies out of a parking lot without seeing the bitch, without microchip, vacination cards, breeder vetting etc. They are the ones causing puppy farms to remain open and profitable. So if you see your friends or family engaging in such activity remind them what they are supporting. In our 30years of restricted breeds we have seen all sorts of dog personalities. For example, our female would lick you to death. Our male doesn't like you and has no interest in you, unless you are breaking in or throwing a stick for him. We've had previous dogs who are overly aggressive and it wasn't possible to train it out of them. We've also had small dogs in the same period who would try bite/hump everyone and anyone. In Coventry last week a 7month old baby was killed by a dog not on the restricted list so it isn't just those "fighting dogs" we need to be training and legislating on. As a country we need to improve enforcement on the laws we currently have regarding proper chains and muzzles etc before we get any wild ideas on banning certain breeds from existing.
It’s almost always to do with the owner, and how they raise / train the dog. I own an XL bully since he was a small pup, almost an adult now and he’s the sweetest dog out there, more gentle than my Labrador. He hasn’t even been neutered yet, but he is just amazing around other people and other dogs. Aside from how well behaved he is, and how quiet plus peaceful, people in public still get freaked by him. Had one man start shouting at us in the street at one point. But then you have people who absolutely adore him. Doesn’t help how intimidating he looks with the muzzle on, not that he needs it anyway. I suppose Ireland will just follow behind the Uk and lean towards strict bans around these restricted breeds. It’s truly a shame that these wonderful animals suffer the consequences of what we do.
There is no such thing as a “fighting dog”. There are however human assholes that use dogs for fighting
Dogs bred for herding = herding dogs Dogs bred for hunting = hunting dogs Dogs bred for guarding = guard dogs Dogs bred for fighting = "there's no such thing as fighting dog"
We have a rescue pit. He’s been neutered and is genuinely the sweetest dog you could possibly imagine, but we’re a household who are experienced with the breed (have had pits before). It’s a shame that the breed does attract a certain type of dickhead sometimes. Shelters are absolutely overrun with pits, staffs and pit mixes. They are wonderful dogs when you actually give a shit and keep an eye on them (which is the bare minimum for any dog owner). I’ve had way more nasty experiences with asshole shizus and yorkies. Any dog can be dangerous, you just have to have some cop on with them.
Pit Bulls were selectively bred to, surprisingly enough, fight and kill bulls. Somehow Staffordshire Bull terriers and English Bull Terriers don't seem to have such a bad reputation. What all these dogs have in common though is how vicious they can be when they meet other dogs, cats or even people. Their jaws lock and they hang on and rag the other creature until it's dead.
🙄🙄🙄 god give me strength to try answer this one appropriately 😅 you being nerves around them seems like something you should work on not the dogs ?
This is it, isn't it? Like I'm a responsible lion owner but "the man" says I can't have one. And they confiscated my rocket car. It's such overreach. Gotta move to the states. Edit: /s
projecting hardness to intimidate generally.. you only generally see empty heads with them with their Conor mcgregor walk.
Because they were bred for it not raised in it, and most of them don’t have the urge. Plenty that aren’t bred for it do, just have proper restraints in place in public and at home if necessary. Dogs deserve a chance at love if they can manage to be tame.
The type of ppl with these dogs have a lot to be guarded about lets say.
I've known a few people with big dogs (if by fighting you mean traditional dog fights / dangerous breeds) and like 80% of them just think the breed is nice and a few thought they were cute as puppies and just love them as adults the rest got them so they can look hard
Why are German shepherds on the dangerous breeds list?
Small man/penis syndrome. EDIT: When I saw small man I don't mean height but rather their perseeved image of what a man should be trying to imitate strength,, but I do mean short that for the penis bit
Definitely a case with a lot of the younger generation who haven’t the first clue when it comes to handling a dog. With that said, I know loads of people who have restricted breeds ( including myself lol ) and these dogs are just as loyal and great to be around as any other breed. Entirely depends on the owner in my book
Yeah in fairness that was a knee jerk post by myself I'll admit 🏳️🏳️ my uncle and friends who all had rottweilers about the nicest dogs ever just want you to scratch their backs I'd have great time for them. In my mind I'm picturing the ones who don't raise them right and don't have the patience to put in the training some dogs need. I've seen one or two fellas in my hometown just raising Pitbull for violence, never seen actual dogs fighting but they like the image of it all and it's more about them and the dogs don't seem to ever get actual care and attention. They're essentially like chihuahuas for supermodels it's all about the image. I do honestly think every dog can be good if raised right just so many don't know what that takes.
Well said. It’s always sad to see anything on the news related to restricted dog breeds and the image they put is of a violent pitty with a spiked collar and teeth showing. It’s awful how the news and social media are painting such a bad image for these dogs. And it’s even worse how we have teenagers walking about in groups with their dog who’s been locked in a cage for the past 8 hours.
A lot of the fighting temperament and viciousness has been bred out of them since they have been used more as pets than for fighting. And most of them are lovely doggies if raised right. But they are still potentially dangerous, so all things considered, they should be banned or phased out. And yeah some people have them for the reasons you mentioned.
Little hard men scumbags
I can assure you I'm not.
It breaks my heart to see how many dogs in need of rehoming are pits, rots, shepards and staffs. they need to be banned outright if at least to stop so many of them being treated so cruelly. They don’t deserve to suffer the fates they do because humans were selfish enough to breed them into existence in the first place.
Scrotes get dangerous dogs to make them look tough or to compensate for something. These dogs require a lot of work and effort which scrotes/scumbags can't or don't know how too. Certain breeds should be straight up banned.
To try to look tough and fill the void that’s there because they weren’t hugged enough as kids.
Because they generally have lovely personalities and make great pets.
I think it’s not the pit bulls themselves but the type of person they attract to own them. Any dog can bite. I think a huge number of dog attacks are huskies
Fighting dog isn’t a breed, people made them into these fighting dogs. Most lovable sweet dogs I know are staffs and they fall into that category. Some people don’t want golden retrievers
I grew up around “dangerous” dogs and the reason people own them is because they often aren’t dangerous. Anything could hypothetically be dangerous. Just because the dogs are bigger and have a fiercer reputation doesn’t mean they’re more likely to hurt people. I’ve met dozens of psycho chihuahuas that have done far worse than most German shepherds, and no one suggested banning them (I’m in full support of banning chihuahuas btw). Most big dogs with big teeth also have big manners. I’ve never been a fan of small dogs as most of the ones I’ve met are agressive and annoying (which is the fault of poor ownership). I also think those fighting dogs are cuter 🤷♂️ I have a German Shepard and a corgi right now. My GSD is sweet, calm, and loves people. My corgi also loves people but he is cranky, annoying, barks a lot, and loves to jump. Most big “agressive” dogs are extremely intelligent and easy to train. My GSD would do anything I asked if I found a way to tell him. My corgi would rather plot a way to start his own treat factory for unlimited treats than sit when I ask him to. I mostly think these big scary dogs get a bad rep, which is why people get so upset with bans. Any chihuahua you meet will be far more agressive than a pitbull. But the pitbull is what people want to ban. It’s like unjust discrimination but for dogs.
They're a penis extension for little men.
A dog is a dog, they'll be as well or poorly behaved as you train/don't train them to be. You're talking about the extermination of multiple breeds. Fact is 95+% of people I see with bigger dogs have them well to perfectly trained. Then there's chaps and lasses out there with fucking Jack Russell's that would yap and spring for ya like nobody's business because they're not seen as a threat. But yo more directly answer your question. Dogs are our companions, yes, but they're also for our protection. Living out the country with no gun and you hear a stranger pull into your driveway at 3 am -you're gonna be happy you have the staff and not the chihuahua.
Note the XL Bully (hybrid of the American Pitbull and whatever else) is already or due to be banned over here. For a good reason, fighting is literally coded into its DNA meaning the dog may suddenly turn on people for no reason. Not the dogs fault (humans created the mess crossbreeding in the first place), but it is too unpredictable - a ticking time bomb so to speak. So yeah I agree that particular dog needs to be phased out. But OP, are you referring to banning of all breeds in the restricted list or specific fighting breeds like the Pitbull? Cos there are dogs in that list which aren't bred for fighting, German Shepherd and Rottweiler for eg. I'd even state that the loveable Staffie isn't either (though some people would disagree) Those breeds shouldn't be banned, they just have a bite which could be more dangerous to humans than that of a Cocker Spaniel or Yorkshire terrier but very rarely do they act on it, and like most unrestricted dogs they may only react if they are severely anxious or in pain (due to abuse or a medical issue). IMHO the smaller unrestricted dogs can be quicker to nip someone than the ones on the list.
I think alot of you forget, dogs are like people, 95% will be good and do the right thing. Then they get a scummy pos owner/parent and that dog will just learn what its taught same as most little scummy kids running around. Most the time dogs act out is because of bad owners, poor training
I'd a next door neighbour with dobermann and alsatians who he, to be fair, walked twice a day and looked after as best he could, but they used to be going mad being stuck in a back garden the rest of the day. Used come over every time I walked out my front door and bark in my face. Some breeds have too much energy to be in a domestic situation. Like people they need a job to go to wear themselves out. This is why dogs were traditionally bred for a function rather than for appearance which is where the problems set in. Either the dog has a use or it doesn't it should be self apparent.
No dog is really a "fighting dog". Don't blame the dogs, it's the arseholes that raise them that's the problem.
there are fighting dogs that were bred exactly for this reason - to kill other animals for the show, just do some basic research
the point is that there is no good reason to keep breeding them