How Would You Respond To This?

[steve11]

Some breeds attack more than others, this is a fact.

Some breeds are dangerous due to the size power and tenacity they have when they attack.

They also seem to attract dangerous owners.

Dog breeds have no inherent ethical right to exist. It doesn't really matter if the owners or the dogs are to blame.

Banning the breed achieves the same outcome.

This sounds like a statement from an idiot who has done no research into the facts (similar to the dribble newspapers like to sprout).

Some breeds do indeed attack more than others but look at the percentages & you will be surprised by the breeds involved, & don't group "crossbreeds" with anything other than a "crossbreed".

I work out in the field visiting various premises everyday & from experience agree that as stated previously it is indeed the small insecure dogs that will bite most often.

Have you also noticed when you walk your dog it is inevitably the small toy type dogs which are yapping & snapping & pulling to get at you & your dog but this behaviour is dismissed by the owner as nothing, yet if you own a medium or larger breed & it exhibits any untoward behaviour you are treated like a criminal of sorts.

As for certain breeds attracting "dangerous owners", banning a certain breed will just make that breed more desireable to such people. Even if you are able to remove a breed by BSL don't you think these "owners" will just move on to another breed then another then another...etc, or simply crossbreed as they have been doing recently.

Another thing i don't understand is the confusion between dogs that are agressive towards people & dogs that are agressive towards dogs, these 2 problems are rarely related, nor are the breeds of dog involved.

Finally the statement that dog breeds have no ethical right to exist leaves me with the simple response that neither do idiots but we don't go round banning them (maybe we should.lol).

Edited April 19, 2009 by steve11

[Storm2008]

What a load of crap