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 For example, it mentions that the Netherlands repealed a pit bull ban, with the implication being that they instead treat all breeds equally… but that’s just not true, because the Netherlands still classified pit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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
It was just the first google link google returned.
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
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
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!”
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.
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?
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.
Yes, we can - stop breeding them. Stop selling them. Stop treating them like slaves.
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.
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