147
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Syldon@feddit.uk 15 points 1 year ago

A total waste of time. Banning breeds has proven to be totally ineffective in the past. The common sense approach would be to make it mandatory to muzzle dogs over a certain size.

[-] Blake@feddit.uk 27 points 1 year ago

There are massive differences between implementing a ban on pit bulls in a single city (Denver) and across an entire nation (the UK). The US is such a mess of federal, state, county, etc. laws that it is difficult to enforce such a law, but in the UK, it’s much easier.

Honestly I’d go a lot further and ban all breeds with significant health issues as well, to be honest.

[-] Syldon@feddit.uk 8 points 1 year ago

It is just as difficult and ineffective in the UK. They just breed in new types of dogs. The XL breed is a cross breed with a pit bull terrier which is already on a banned breed list.

I would be for banning breeds with health issues. I would also ban all dog shows that promote dog breed types into the bargain. You will never stop idiots who follow celebrities, but dog shows are an easy fix, and a major reason people buy pedigrees in the first place.

[-] Blake@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago

Absolutely agree with you about banning dog shows. I am sure that there are valid criticisms of breed specific bans, but the article you linked wasn’t very persuasive at all, it was really clearly biased and had many weak arguments. Of the various claims made, I looked deeper into a few of them and found that the article was quite misleading. For example, it mentions that the Netherlands repealed a pit bull ban, with the implication being that they instead treat all breeds equally… but that’s just not true, because the Netherlands still classified pit bulls as a dangerous breed, and dogs classed as dangerous need to go through state mandated testing or be euthanised, which is a lot more work and much more cruel than the UK’s dangerous dogs legislation.

I’m open to hearing good criticism from a perspective of improving outcomes but surely we can do better than that americentric article

[-] Syldon@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

It was just the first google link google returned.

[-] Blake@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago

Had a Google around myself and didn’t really find anything convincing. Just a lot of handwringing about how banning breeds is imperfect because some dogs of that breed can be raised in a loving and caring environment to become affectionate and caring pets. Sure, great, but so can every other breed. There aren’t really any sensible proposals for how to handle the issue of dangerous dogs from those who oppose breed bans. They seem to favour treating each dog individually, but how would that work? We would need to establish a fucking huge office of dog assessors to check every dog in the UK to evaluate if they have good inherent behaviour and that they’ve been raised well, and if they fail the test at that point they’re taking away a beloved family member from people who presumably did their best. I really don’t think that’s a better outcome for anyone.

As it is we have far too much dog breeding going on, so anything that happens to reduce that or to make it harder is a good thing in my view

[-] JoBo@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you try to ban breeds you just get an ever-expanding list of banned breeds, and penalise good owners alongside bad. People who want dogs as a weapon, or who want the look but can't put the time in, will always find new breeds to abuse.

Leash-laws, compulsory muzzling, licencing for larger dogs, and training for owners are much more effective. This problem is exploding (again) because so many inexperienced people got dogs during the pandemic and now don't have the time to spend with them.

The problem isn't going to disappear just because you can name a new hate-breed of the month. All doggoes are good doggoes, too many owners let them down. We can do something about that, if we want to.

Reposting this from above (not my link originally): Why Breed-Specific Legislation Doesn’t Work

[-] Blake@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

If you try to ban breeds you just get an ever-expanding list of banned breeds

Yes, that is how a banned breeds list works, and pretty much all laws. “Oh but you'll have to ban other breeds in the future!”, great! We’re not trying to write the One Law that is forever good and valid. That’s like saying, “if you ban certain activities you’ll get an ever-expanding list of crimes!”

penalise good owners alongside bad

No one has to have their beloved pet put down. The banned breeds list only “harms” breeders, and breeders are so fucking unethical and bad for dog’s welfare that I couldn’t really give a solitary fuck.

People who want dogs as a weapon will always find new breeds to abuse.

Right, but we don’t say “there’s no point in banning guns because knives still exist”, do we? We can have both sensible measures to prevent cruel owners AND restricted dangerous dog breeds can’t we?

All doggoes are good doggoes

That’s just not true, sadly. From what we know about dog breeding is that aggression is a very heritable trait, so dogs that have been bred for fighting, even with good upbringing, are inherently more likely to snap and harm someone than a dog in the same situation which was bred from less aggressive dogs.

We can do something about that, if we want to.

Yes, we can - stop breeding them. Stop selling them. Stop treating them like slaves.

[-] Syldon@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

There is never going to be conclusive evidence that it is down to the breed. No one would be so inhumane as to do a study where you mistreat a lot of dogs to see the effects. It is reasonable imo that mistreatment is a major cause of an aggressive dog. You can make a rat aggressive if you condition it that way.

My personal opinion of the dog breeding market in the UK is very low.

[-] Blake@feddit.uk 6 points 1 year ago

No one would be so inhumane as to do a study where you mistreat a lot of dogs to see the effects.

Of course they would, and they have, and they do, animal testing on dogs is pretty common. I am absolutely opposed to it, of course, but if someone could have made some money out of it, they would have done it.

Additionally, even the RSPCA when arguing against breed restrictions accidentally reveal quite a damning statistic - of the pit bull puppies they raised, they deemed that around 70% of them were affectionate and non-aggressive enough to be suitable as family pets. That means 30% of them weren’t. I wonder what percentage of golden retriever puppies the RSPCA could raise to be suitable family pets

[-] JoBo@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

You should probably read the whole article before dismissing it. Easily the most sensible thing I've seen written about this.

[-] Blake@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

I read the article and responded to several of the points elsewhere (OP posted it twice) - it’s total nonsense, sorry. If you read that and thought it was sensible I would strongly, strongly encourage you to seek out a media literacy course because it is quite overt misinformation

[-] Jabbawacky@feddit.uk 21 points 1 year ago

Nah mate, these dogs are fucking disgusting freaks. I've been chased by one before - quite frankly, I don't give a fuck what your research says.

[-] Syldon@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago

My point was that all dogs are dangerous. Selecting breeds shows total lack of understanding. It is how the dog is reared that causes the issues. Since you cannot evaluate that by looking at a dog then it makes more sense to add a safety device for all dogs.

[-] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

Do you have any statistics on deaths by dachshund?

[-] Syldon@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago
[-] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, oddly enough you didn’t. Off though - you’d think if it were all to do with upbringing rather than breed, there would be at least one Dachshund-related fatality over the last 109 years.

[-] Syldon@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago
[-] merridew@feddit.uk 12 points 1 year ago

After investigation, it was determined that the woman in question

is believed to have been killed by her own American Bully XL

The victim's dog

was the only animal to have been destroyed, which they believe to be an American Bully XL

while

two seized dachshunds were returned to their owner.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12094705/Woman-28-mauled-death-pack-dogs-killed-American-Bully-XL.html

[-] Syldon@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

You seriously used the Daily Mail as a source?

[-] merridew@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago

Feel free to post alternative sources.

You'll struggle to find one that doesn't state the same facts: that following forensic investigation the victim's American Bully XL was destroyed, and two dachshunds were returned to their owners without issue.

[-] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

I mean, she was walking 8 dogs when she attacked and all the dogs were kept by the police. So, we don’t know to what extent the dachshunds were involved in her death, but if it makes you happy.

[-] merridew@feddit.uk 9 points 1 year ago

The dachshunds were returned to their owners. The victim's dog, an American Bully XL, was destroyed.

[-] lemonflavoured@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago
[-] Jabbawacky@feddit.uk 11 points 1 year ago

"how it was reared"

You lost me there. These are breeds with an inherent nature to kill and maim. They're freaks, mutants, and now thankfully to be banned.

[-] Syldon@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago
[-] lemonflavoured@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

all dogs are dangerous

Okay, how many deaths are there due to Chihuahua? I will concede that it is perhaps biologically possible for them to bite off the finger of an infant, which could in theory be fatal, but the odds are pretty fucking slim.

[-] Syldon@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

Which is why I said above a certain weight.

Totally not a biased source, with no actual statistics or studies to back them up - ah right. We have much fewer dog attacks and especially fatal dog attacks in the UK than the US.

[-] Syldon@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago

This report gives the opinions of expert behaviourists and consultants on the reasons why some dogs may be aggressive towards people. Of the 215 experts who responded, some 74% argued that breed was either not at all important or only slightly important, whilst an overwhelming 86% believed it was due to the way that the dog was brought up by its owner.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/90096/html/

The law on dangerous dogs refers to specific breeds of dog as ‘dangerous’. However, we believe that breed-specific legislation ignores the most important factors that contribute to biting incidents – primarily anti-social behaviour by irresponsible dog owners who train their dogs to be aggressive or do not train their dogs adequately.

https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/about-us/campaigns/dangerous-dogs-deed-not-breed/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/11/banning-some-dog-breeds-in-the-uk-wont-stop-attacks-on-humans - study in comments

There is a ton of research on the issue.

[-] Blake@feddit.uk 15 points 1 year ago

Data were gathered via owner report using an online survey […] advertised online (via Facebook and relevant dog/breed specific groups, Twitter, pet fora, via the UK Kennel Club”

Such science, very wow

[-] Jabbawacky@feddit.uk 9 points 1 year ago
[-] blujan@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

Opinions by "experts" are not actual science.

this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
147 points (100.0% liked)

United Kingdom

4040 readers
14 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS