Targeting Them, The Irresponsible Owners/breeders

[sandgrubber]

Stuff that works (and a great blog if you want a good full story on the implementation, then repeals of BSL in the US)

Calgary does it right...

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/200...-incidents.html

The Calgary solution sounds great, but I wonder what they charge or dog registration. The articles sited say their whole program, which doesn't sound cheap, is paid for by the proceeds from dog registrations.

Is it equitable to tax owners of "mostly harmless" breeds to pay for management of "tendency to aggression" breeds/crossbreeds?

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Same rule, all dogs. It is the only thing that is equitable and fair. All dogs can and do attack. Pets are the responsibility of thier owners and its thier owners that are accountable for all actions.

Thats the second time in this thread you have made breed specific suggestions.

Isnt the title of the thread targetting the owners, and the aim to dump breed specific legislation ?

[Kirra_Bomber_Zeus]

Same rule, all dogs. It is the only thing that is equitable and fair. All dogs can and do attack. Pets are the responsibility of thier owners and its thier owners that are accountable for all actions.

I agree - which dogs are classified as 'mostly harmless'?? I think its a dangerous thing to divide dog breeds in to 'safe' and 'not safe'. This is where the mentality that 'I never thought MY dog would attack my child - he's a <insert safe breed here> they're not dangerous!' comes from. This is why the public perception is what it is at the moment - the media have convinced people that there are only certain breeds of dogs you need to 'watch out for'. ALL dogs have teeth and all dogs have the ability to attack.

I wouldnt think it was 'fair' if the owner of a gentle APBT had to pay the tax and an owner of a vicious SWF didnt..... Whatever the solution is it needs to be a solution that is not determined by breed.

Personally, I think education is the key. I know we will never be able to avoid certain breeds attracting irresponsible owners, but I think many attacks are by dogs owned by people who are not thugs, they havent intentionally trained their dog to attack, they were just uneducated about raising a dog, supervising their children around dogs etc. I dont particularly think 'more laws' are required - if the current laws were directed at dangerous dogs of any breed they would be sufficient - IF they were enforced properly. Introducing more laws such as licensing would be helpful if it could target the right people - unfortunately, the people doing the 'wrong thing' would just find a way around them. The people doing the 'right thing' are already doing the right thing.

If we can convince the Government that education programs will reduce dog attacks and help them find ways to enforce the non breed specific laws they already have, there may be light at the end of the tunnel.

[Just Midol]

I don't think it's fair to treat all breeds the same.

Some are more difficult to own. There should be different requirements based on the individual breeds with those breeds being more challenging having more requirements which in turn should cost more.

I'd vote to have huskies in the most expensive category.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Midol, cant do it. Some breeds on a whole can be more difficult in some aspects, for instance spitz breeds running away, but there are always exceptions to the rule, what about them ? Its impossible (and unfair) to do it any other way. Kind of like paying tax, you just have to, and the money is then allocated for the good of all.

Heres a few different dogs, all different breeds and cross breeds, and a brief summary of any aspect of thier tempermant that needs extra responsibility on the owners part. Most of these dogs are or have been well managed by thier respective owners.

I hope it might illustrate how muddled and unfair pinning stereotypes on breeds can be. It has no place in any legislation. These dogs are either mine or close friends that I know well.

Unknown Bullbreed x. No behavioural challenges.

Malamute. Lacks reliable recall. Is a meathead who can be a challenge to train but does have basic obedience. Not suitable to play with most other dogs because he is too rough and dominant.

Rottweiler. Will use force if necessary to defend his yard against strangers, but is gentle as a lamb if they have been invited.

Shitzu x Maltese

No behavioural challenges.

American Pitbull Terrier

Not trusted with small breeds.

Rottweiller x Staffy

Will dominate large breed males and fight if they resist.

JRT x Mini Fox Terrier

Vicous with other dogs outside of his pack. Escape artist. Unreliable recall.

Shiba Inu

Lacks all recall. Will bite a stranger if provoked.

Golden Retriever

Doesnt know how to fight, but will start them anyway. Very dominant with large breed males.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Troy
Remove image

[Ashanali]

Cal - can you please remove Ashi's photo. As the photographer I retain copyright of the image.

Thank you

eta: I would have pm'd you but apparently I'm blocked. Apologies for making this public.

Edited March 27, 2009 by Troy

[sandgrubber]

Midol, cant do it. Some breeds on a whole can be more difficult in some aspects, for instance spitz breeds running away, but there are always exceptions to the rule, what about them ? Its impossible (and unfair) to do it any other way. Kind of like paying tax, you just have to, and the money is then allocated for the good of all.

Heres a few different dogs, all different breeds and cross breeds, and a brief summary of any aspect of thier tempermant that needs extra responsibility on the owners part. Most of these dogs are or have been well managed by thier respective owners.

I hope it might illustrate how muddled and unfair pinning stereotypes on breeds can be. It has no place in any legislation. These dogs are either mine or close friends that I know well.

Malamute. Lacks reliable recall. Is a meathead who can be a challenge to train but does have basic obedience. Not suitable to play with most other dogs because he is too rough and dominant.

Rottweiler. Will use force if necessary to defend his yard against strangers, but is gentle as a lamb if they have been invited.

Shitzu x Maltese No behavioural challenges.

American Pitbull Terrier Not trusted with small breeds.

Rottweiller x Staffy Will dominate large breed males and fight if they resist.

JRT x Mini Fox Terrier. Vicous with other dogs outside of his pack. Escape artist. Unreliable recall.

Shiba Inu Lacks all recall. Will bite a stranger if provoked.

Golden Retriever: Doesnt know how to fight, but will start them anyway. Very dominant with large breed males.

I agree with the spirit of your post. Temperament variation within breeds is huge and it's hard and unfair to generalise. Btw. I've met some quite nasty shih-tzu X malteses.

I run a boarding kennel and work on the assumption that most dogs are social beasts and will be happier if allowed some sort of pack . . . though some cannot safely be allowed to mix with other dogs due to DA tendencies. I use breed as a first cut decider. Eg, staffies and JRTs are particularly unpredictable. Some of them are sweet, many would be ok but their boisterous greetings tend to set off hostile reactions in other dogs, and some are outright DA. Socialised Rottis are much happier with dog company than left alone, while unsocialised Rottis cannot be mixed cause the cost of them getting agro is not acceptable. Kelpies tend to be timid and may nip when threatened, but rarely attack; but some of them will fly over a 2 m fence when they feel threatened. In cases where breed raises questions, I always grill the owner about the dog's social behaviour and do a fair bit of testing before allowing the dog to mix with other dogs. On the other hand, thanks to breed standards that are largely enforced by culling DA animals from the breeding stock, most gundogs are dog social. There are exceptions -- I have a DA goldie in kennels now, and I have had an occasional DA Labrador / Weimerarner / GSP. Once ensuring a gundog isn't an exception, you can let it mix after relatively minor testing of reactions to other dogs. Cross breeds are harder to predict. I don't trust any entire male, especially when girls are on season.

What about . . . make the legislation breed neutral . . . but the penalties proportional to the dog's ability to do damage . . . as rated by, say, some combination of body weight and jaw strength.

For example, a nasty tempered Chihuahua (sp?) is unlikely to damage more than an ankle and is unlikely to kill a cat (might kill a bunny rabbit). A nasty tempered Mastiff X Rotti, weighing 75 kg, with a whopping strong jaw, is likely to kill something if inherent temperament is aggressive, socialisation, containment, and control are poor. So the fine for a nasty WaWa escaping and biting the postie might be . . . say . . . 10% of that for the equivalent fine for a dog with lethal potential biting the postie. Double the fines if the dog or bitch isn't desexed.

Under this system a nasty Labrador would be treated the same as a nasty Pitti . . . or maybe worse, cause Labbies are more inclined to get fat As a Lab breeder I'd be ok with that. So far as I'm aware, none of my pups have shown DA or HA tendencies. Great if puppy buyers are encouraged to keep their dogs slim and get them desexed.

p.s. Also good if prior record is considered, breeders are held somewhat responsible for the pups they have bred, and rangers are encouraged to make their priorities: chronic offenders and dogs that are physically a threat to people and other animals and any indication of blood sport.

Edited April 4, 2009 by sandgrubber