Thursday, January 28, 2010

Andrei "Aggressive dogs were more a result of training than breed" - Sure they are

This dog is a Shih Tzu, a very aristocratic breed of dog, beloved of the Chinese imperial family for millenia.

The thing is have you ever heard of a child being mauled by a Shih tzu?

Or ever read of someone feeding kittens to one?

Of course not, these dogs love children, love playing and are generally not much of a problem at all. the worst thing they might do is to chew up the living room rug.

They still have to be registered and micro chipped just like any other dog though. And they are since the people who own such dogs are almost universally law abiding people.

On the other hand this is a pit bull, a dog which has been getting bad press in the last few days. Apart from the ghastly kitten story, there have been two children severely mauled by these animals in the past week.

And this is not a new phenomona, the reason why we have dog control laws is there have been multiple incidents involving these creatures and innocents going back decades.

Why anyone would want to own such a dog is a complete mystery to me, although I expect it has something to do with wanting to scare other people.

And since there has never been an incident where a Shih Tzu has caused any harm, well not that I know of, I am prepared to call this claim: People who blame the breed for the harm it causes "misinformed" - for what it is.

And that is utter BS

7 comment(s):

I.M Fletcher said...

I am told that when they were thinking about bringing these types of breeds into the country years ago people in the know both here and overseas begged them not to be allowed in, but like a lot of things the voice of common sense did not prevail.

These dogs have a violent nature, and sure, it may not present itself right away but I think that it does and will surface eventually.

These breeds should be banned. Dog chipping was never going to solve the problem. The Govt had to be seen to be doing something. Microchips might help to find your lost pet but they won't stop dogs like these attacking children (or anyone else for that matter).

ZenTiger said...

I wonder why Tigers are not imported as pets and then paraded around on the streets?

On the other hand, put some of those little dogs into a big dog's body and we might see a new level of danger :-)

What is the option for NZ now?

No doubt, cruel training techniques will make even a normally nice dog dangerous if (when?) these breeds are banned.

We may be forced to resort to eugenics and weed out the bad dog owners.

big bruv said...

I agree that these breeds should be banned, however, as you rightly suggest the real problem is the low life scum who are attracted to pit bulls and the like.

As somebody who has owned dogs for 25 years (never a pit bull or an 'aggressive' breed) and been involved in rehabilitating all types of togs (sadly a few pit bulls and Rottie type breeds) for the last ten years I can categorically state that the problem is not with the breed but with the vermin who own them.

It is intensely heartbreaking to rehabilitate an abused or scared dog (violence in dogs comes mostly from fear) only to see the same type of human scum volunteer to re home the dog who got that dog in such a state in the first place.

The reality is that responsible caring dog owners are not attracted to pit bulls and pit bull crosses.

The only responsible cause of action the government can take is to ban these breeds.

ZenTiger said...

Agree Big Bruv, and even in banning such breeds still think the real issue will not go away - other breeds will be targeted and the bad dog owners will create bad dogs.

We need to get serious about issues of animal cruelty that are indicators to creating lethal pets.

ZenTiger said...

I should clarify - I think banning that breed and cross-breed would have the single biggest effect on public safety because they seem to be more aggressive and unpredictable than other breeds (some cases are where the owners did not expect Brutus to attack - "et tu Brutus?").

louie said...

I dont believe banning any breed of dog will result in less attacks.
All it will result in is driving these breeds futher away from mainstream law abiding people. I think this will only make a bad situation for these dogs worse.
People need a licence to drive a car or own a firearm, why because these things can cause harm if used or abused in an inapropriate fashion.
Why not require a licence for certain breeds?.Say like the kind of set up at pistol clubs.
That way people who enjoy dogs with more tenacity and power than your usual handbag warmer could do it,and have the benefit of and access to all the good things associated with clubs.
As for crosses no way anyone is ever gonna find a way to weed them out. Which is a pity because i suspect the media in most attacks are getting the breed id wrong.
pitbulls in particular were culled
heavily for human aggression when there breed was being formed for dog fighting.
Howerver if you breed a pitbull with all its power and potential with say a gaurding breed you get a human aggresive instict backed up by the pitbulls drive to act.
Not good at all.

ZenTiger said...

I'd love to see some good quality analysis on actual dog attacks by breed and by severity.

I recall one study in America that looked at 10 years of dog attacks, and that included about 238 human fatalities. Those 238 fatalities were done by 25 breeds, but pit bulls accounted for nearly 60%.

That tells me a few things:

1. Smaller dogs might also attack, but less likely to be reported, and less likely to deliver fatalities.

2. No doubt about the power and aggressive of a pit bull being able to actually kill. Even accounting for other factors it would seem they are dangerous.

3. Those base stats in themselves don't really explain how accurate was the reporting, and there could easily be different interpretations of the data. I'm assuming because human deaths were
a consequence though that the data is more likely to be verifiable.

4. It would be extremely interesting to get a break down between different circumstances of the attack:

1. Stranger going onto property

2. Age metrics of victims

3. Dog known to victim (kills baby for example) or dog unknown (escapes garden and kills off property)

4. Owner totally surprised at what they thought was a good natured dog, versus it being trained as a guard dog

5. Elements of owner cruelty involved.

6. Registered versus unregistered dogs.


That would help refine the debate.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.