Of course, the people who abuse their dogs to the point of become dangerous will just move on the next breed.
Playing whack-a-mole isn’t ever effective policy. Before this breed it was pitbulls, after this breed it’ll just be something else.
Dog attacks won’t stop unless we ban all dogs, stop people who abuse animals to the point of of being dangerous from owning dogs, or stop people from wanting to abuse animals to the point of being dangerous.
That said, this isn’t a harmful policy, just an ineffective one. If you want to own a dog, for good or ill, there are plenty of other breeds out there.
You were arguing that if you ban one breed the shitty owners will move on to another one. My point was that that other breed will (probably) not be quite as dangerous as this one, so it’s a net positive.
Unfortunately recent data dose indicate an increase in fatal attacks when this new breed/cross became available/popular.
That is harder with older breeds because data is less available in the past.
But yes your point is valid. Breed is not really a valid method. Characteristics. And or personality would be better. But harder to police.
But I’m also of the opinion that bans even then are not the best method. If defining characteristics is possible. Then requiring owner to be qualified and required to keep the dogs in a safe manner is also reasonable.
Any dog with an uncontrollable prey drive. Is generally safe from fatal attacks if muzzled. Add to that a requirement to be able to control the dog.
If you want to keep a leopard. You are required to do so with the right qualifications and enviroment to do so. While dividing dogs is a lot more complex. No one sane wants to require owners of a chihuahua to be qualified for dangerous animals. As doing so would remove companion animals from lots of loving responsible owners.
But as you indicate. If someone is looking for a violent dog. Then increasing the effort and checks they must comply with. Will put the desire out of reach for all but the most dedicated/ responsible.
Yeah I tried to summarise that in the what would prevent fatal attacks paragraph. I try to see through a “what effective measures have we done to regulate things that can cause harm” lense.
Cars can cause harm, we demand training, licencing, registering, insurance, stoppages by police to provide proof of the above, etc etc. There are still fatalities though. I would accept every one of those measures being applied to dog ownership, you’re right it sucks for the peeps owning chihuahuas, their insurance will likely be low though.
That said, after engaging with the dog foster system (as a fosterer), I have other reasons for wanting to limit access to dogs. I weigh the harm done to families that lose an opportunity Vs the harm prevention I believe the above will deliver by decreasing the number of homeless dogs and increasing the living standards by improving the skills of the owner. I would add all animals are neutered at the earliest possible convenience unless owned by a registered breeder, that registration being an absolute bastard to get, perhaps requiring yearly inspections to curb puppy mills too. I love dogs, I don’t see their ownership as a right but a responsibility first and a privilege second.
I did think about banning characteristics, which then lead me on to blades as we regulate blades by characteristic. I have absolutely no idea if it was effective though, and didn’t care to check, so I didn’t include it. But how to apply it to dogs, weight maybe, biting force are objectively measurable but what happens if some family just lands an absolute chonk. As you say, the actual relevent characteristics are functionally impossible to police.
Germany looks at patterns. Bully XL isn’t even accepted as a distinct race and you don’t need to ban it, it just needs to hit certain traits and it will be considered a dangerous dog breed regardless.
I think I answered that. Or I don’t understand your question. Just keep banning what?
I suppose I assumed the aim of the policy is “to stop fatal dog attacks in the UK”. I also assumed that was the reasoning behind the pitbull ban too, and look where we are. We could learn from history, or we could just keep banning them. This is all just repetition of my previous comment though.
I guess if the aim is to ban breeds of dogs then sure, why not keep banning them.
This would go a lot easier if you would please read my initial comment. Both of your comments are answered in there.
[Edit, both comments aren’t you, my bad. So far everything asked is addressed in my initial comment though] there also aren’t fewer dog attacks now than compared to before the pitbull ban.
Once again, someone didn’t read my first two paragraphs.
But for challenges.
Here is a list of dog attacks fatalities in the uk the summary has a yearly count. Just looking at the numbers, what year was the pitbull ban and state your reasoning only using the numbers? For example if you pick 1985 because there were 4 that year and fewer after, then the dog breed ban wasn’t effective because the exact same thing happened in 1991.
Dog breed bans do not prevent fatal dog attacks, the numbers bear that out and my initial comment explains why. This is so much red meat for the emotional or dead cat for the guilable, whatever it is, it’s boring.
Of course, the people who abuse their dogs to the point of become dangerous will just move on the next breed.
Playing whack-a-mole isn’t ever effective policy. Before this breed it was pitbulls, after this breed it’ll just be something else.
Dog attacks won’t stop unless we ban all dogs, stop people who abuse animals to the point of of being dangerous from owning dogs, or stop people from wanting to abuse animals to the point of being dangerous.
That said, this isn’t a harmful policy, just an ineffective one. If you want to own a dog, for good or ill, there are plenty of other breeds out there.
The difference is that other breeds aren’t quite as dangerous, and so won’t kill or maim as many people.
deleted by creator
I’m not sure this is a reply to me. Difference in what is that? I think my initial two paragraphs respond to what I think you’re saying regardless.
You were arguing that if you ban one breed the shitty owners will move on to another one. My point was that that other breed will (probably) not be quite as dangerous as this one, so it’s a net positive.
Nice argument, I showed you the data the proves it wrong though.
But beyond that the argument is flawed fundamentally, dog breeds aren’t static and the gog abusers don’t have to start with dachounds.
My argument stands and is supported by the data.
While the data proves that banning breeds fails.
Unfortunately recent data dose indicate an increase in fatal attacks when this new breed/cross became available/popular.
That is harder with older breeds because data is less available in the past.
But yes your point is valid. Breed is not really a valid method. Characteristics. And or personality would be better. But harder to police.
But I’m also of the opinion that bans even then are not the best method. If defining characteristics is possible. Then requiring owner to be qualified and required to keep the dogs in a safe manner is also reasonable.
Any dog with an uncontrollable prey drive. Is generally safe from fatal attacks if muzzled. Add to that a requirement to be able to control the dog.
If you want to keep a leopard. You are required to do so with the right qualifications and enviroment to do so. While dividing dogs is a lot more complex. No one sane wants to require owners of a chihuahua to be qualified for dangerous animals. As doing so would remove companion animals from lots of loving responsible owners.
But as you indicate. If someone is looking for a violent dog. Then increasing the effort and checks they must comply with. Will put the desire out of reach for all but the most dedicated/ responsible.
Yeah I tried to summarise that in the what would prevent fatal attacks paragraph. I try to see through a “what effective measures have we done to regulate things that can cause harm” lense.
Cars can cause harm, we demand training, licencing, registering, insurance, stoppages by police to provide proof of the above, etc etc. There are still fatalities though. I would accept every one of those measures being applied to dog ownership, you’re right it sucks for the peeps owning chihuahuas, their insurance will likely be low though.
That said, after engaging with the dog foster system (as a fosterer), I have other reasons for wanting to limit access to dogs. I weigh the harm done to families that lose an opportunity Vs the harm prevention I believe the above will deliver by decreasing the number of homeless dogs and increasing the living standards by improving the skills of the owner. I would add all animals are neutered at the earliest possible convenience unless owned by a registered breeder, that registration being an absolute bastard to get, perhaps requiring yearly inspections to curb puppy mills too. I love dogs, I don’t see their ownership as a right but a responsibility first and a privilege second.
I did think about banning characteristics, which then lead me on to blades as we regulate blades by characteristic. I have absolutely no idea if it was effective though, and didn’t care to check, so I didn’t include it. But how to apply it to dogs, weight maybe, biting force are objectively measurable but what happens if some family just lands an absolute chonk. As you say, the actual relevent characteristics are functionally impossible to police.
Why not just keep banning them?
Germany looks at patterns. Bully XL isn’t even accepted as a distinct race and you don’t need to ban it, it just needs to hit certain traits and it will be considered a dangerous dog breed regardless.
I think I answered that. Or I don’t understand your question. Just keep banning what?
I suppose I assumed the aim of the policy is “to stop fatal dog attacks in the UK”. I also assumed that was the reasoning behind the pitbull ban too, and look where we are. We could learn from history, or we could just keep banning them. This is all just repetition of my previous comment though.
I guess if the aim is to ban breeds of dogs then sure, why not keep banning them.
Um, a bit safer with fewer mental dogs running about
This would go a lot easier if you would please read my initial comment. Both of your comments are answered in there.
[Edit, both comments aren’t you, my bad. So far everything asked is addressed in my initial comment though] there also aren’t fewer dog attacks now than compared to before the pitbull ban.
This’s is where I issue my standard challenge to find the statistics on fatalities cause by dachshund attacks
Once again, someone didn’t read my first two paragraphs.
But for challenges.
Here is a list of dog attacks fatalities in the uk the summary has a yearly count. Just looking at the numbers, what year was the pitbull ban and state your reasoning only using the numbers? For example if you pick 1985 because there were 4 that year and fewer after, then the dog breed ban wasn’t effective because the exact same thing happened in 1991.
Dog breed bans do not prevent fatal dog attacks, the numbers bear that out and my initial comment explains why. This is so much red meat for the emotional or dead cat for the guilable, whatever it is, it’s boring.