so what is wrong with having a special licence for type breeds that have killed alot like the rotty !? Where only pacific breeders could sell only to pacific buyers/owners by law ! The breeders/buyers must meet a pacific criteria by law to obtain the licence to own or buy such a breed ! And would be accountable for what there dog does by law ! this could be backed up by a minimum jail term for any infringement! wouldent that be better than banning the breed and spoiling it for all those responsible owners that love there dogs!

I really don't think the answer is to place restrictions on breeds,we have endured 16 yrs of that under the DDA,the breed isn't the problem.

Fatal Dog Attacks

This is what the link says,it is from the US.

"FATAL DOG ATTACKS"
The Stories Behind the Statistics
An Investigative Study into the Circumstances Surrounding Dog-Bite Related
Human Fatalities from 1965 through the Present.
by Karen Delise

"There is nothing to fear except the persistent refusal to find out the
truth, the persistent refusal to analyze the causes of happenings."
Dorothy Thompson, (1894 - 1961)

Todays media is filled with sensational headlines of dog attacks.
Routinely quoted in these newspaper accounts are dated statistics from the
Centers for Disease Control. The last CDC study released documented which
breeds of dogs caused the most human fatalities from 1979 through 1998.
While the CDC did an admirable job of studying fatal dog attacks, and went
to great lengths to point out that irresponsible owners were the cause of
most of these incidents, the media and lawmakers continue to use CDC
statistics to substantiate claims that certain breeds of dogs are
inherently more "vicious" than other breeds.

The result of sensationalizing individual incidents of severe or fatal dog
attacks, included with the use of unexamined statistical "evidence" has
created an unfortunate and inaccurate public and political perception as
to the dangerousness and predictability of certain breeds of dogs. Despite
enormous public and political interest in fatal dog attacks, there is no
agency or organization that does investigative work (with the exception of
this study) into each of the individual cases of fatal dog attacks and
records the number and circumstances of fatal dog attacks on a continuous,
yearly basis.

This study is conducted in an attempt to understand the human and canine
behaviors that contribute to a fatal dog attack. Only in understanding the
events and circumstances surrounding these incidents can we hope to
prevent future tragedies.

STUDY FINDINGS:
After reviewing over 431 cases of fatal dog attacks it is apparent there
is no single factor that translates in a lethal encounter between a person
and a dog(s). A fatal dog attack is always the culmination of past and
present events that include: inherited and learned behaviors, genetics,
breeding, socialization, function of the dog, physical condition and size
of the dog, reproductive status of dog, popularity of breed, individual
temperament, environmental stresses, owner responsibility, victim
behavior, victim size and physical condition, timing and misfortune.

While many circumstances may contribute to a fatal dog attack, the
following three factors appear to play a critical role in the display of
canine aggression towards humans;

1. Function of the dog - (Includes: dogs acquired for fighting,
guarding/protection or image enhancement)

2. Owner responsibility - (Includes: dogs allowed to roam loose,
chained dogs, dogs and/or children left unsupervised, dogs permitted or
encouraged to behave aggressively, animal neglect and/or abuse)

3. Reproductive status of dog - (Includes: unaltered males dogs,
bitches with puppies, children coming between male dog and female dog in
estrus)

It is necessary to emphasize that a fatal dog attack is an exceptionally
unusual event. Approximating 20 deaths per year in a dog population of 53
million yields an infinitesimal percent of the dog population (.0000004%)
involved in a human fatality.

THE BREED FACTOR
Many communities and cities believe that the solution to prevent severe
and fatal dog attacks is to label, restrict or ban certain breeds of dogs
as potentially dangerous. If the breed of dog was the primary or sole
determining factor in a fatal dog attack, it would necessarily stand to
reason that since there are literally millions of Rottweilers, Pit Bulls
and German Shepherd Dogs in the United States, there would have to be
countless more than an approximate 20 human fatalities per year.

Since only an infinitesimal number of any breed is implicated in a human
fatality, it is not only unreasonable to characterize this as a specific
breed behavior by which judge an entire population of dogs, it also does
little to prevent fatal or severe dog attacks as the real causes and
events that contribute to a fatal attack are masked by the issue of breed
and not seriously addressed.

Pit Bulls in particular have been in a firestorm of bad publicity, and
throughout the country Pit Bulls often bear the brunt of breed specific
legislation. One severe or fatal attack can result in either restrictions
or outright banning of this breed (and other breeds) in a community. While
any severe or fatal attack on a person is tragic, there is often a tragic
loss of perspective as to degree of dangerousness associated with this
breed in reaction to a fatality. Virtually any breed of dog can be
implicated in a human fatality.

>From 1965 - 2001, there have been at least 36 different breeds/types of
dog that have been involved in a fatal attack in the United States. (This
number rises to at least 52 breeds/types when surveying fatal attacks
worldwide). We are increasingly becoming a society that has less and less
tolerance and understanding of natural canine behaviors. Breed specific
behaviors that have been respected and selected for over the centuries are
now often viewed as unnatural or dangerous. Dogs have throughout the
centuries served as protectors and guardians of our property, possessions
and families. Dogs have also been used for thousands of years to track,
chase and hunt both large and small animals. These natural and
selected-for canine behaviors seem to now eliciting fear, shock and a
sense of distrust among many people.

There seems to be an ever growing expectation of a "behaviorally
homogenized" dog - "Benji" in the shape of a Rottweiler. Breeds of dogs
with greater protection instincts or an elevated prey-drive are often
unfairly viewed as "aggressive or dangerous". No breed of dog is
inherently vicious, as all breeds of dogs were created and are maintained
exclusively to serve and co-exist with humans. The problem exists not
within the breed of dog, but rather within the owners that fail to
control, supervise, maintain and properly train the breed of dog they
choose to keep.

CANINE AGGRESSION - AN OVERVIEW
It is important to emphasize that dogs bite today for the same reasons
that they did one hundred or one thousand years ago. Dogs are no more
dangerous today than they were a century or millennium ago. They only
difference is a shift in human perception of what is and is not natural
canine behavior and/or aggression and the breed of dog involved.

Examination of newspaper archival records dating back to the 1950s and
1960s reveal the same types of severe and fatal attacks occurring then as
today. The only difference is the breed of dog responsible for these
events. A random study of 74 severe and fatal attacks reported in the
Evening Bulletin (Philadelphia, PA) from 1964-1968, show no severe or
fatal attacks by Rottweilers and only one attack attributed to a
Pit-Bull-type dog. The dogs involved in most of these incidents were the
breeds that were popular at the time.

Over two thousand years ago, Plato extolled a basic understanding of
canine behavior when he wrote "the disposition of noble dogs is to be
gentle with people they know and the opposite with those they dont
know...." Recently, this fundamental principal of canine behavior seems to
elude many people as parents allow their children to be unsupervised with
unfamiliar dogs and lawmakers clamor to declare certain dogs as dangerous
in response to an attack.

Any dog, regardless of breed, is only as dangerous as his/her owner allows
it to be.

Addressing the issue of severe and fatal dog attacks as a breed specific
problem is akin to treating the symptom and not the disease. Severe and
fatal attacks will continue until we come to the realization that allowing
a toddler to wander off to a chained dog is more of a critical factor in a
fatal dog attack than which breed of dog is at the end of the chain.

Only when we become more knowledgeable, humane and responsible in our
treatment of dogs can we hope to prevent future tragedies.

__________________




Rooney Rumpus DNA Tested L2/HC Clear

Ellies Babe Genetically L2/HC Clear

ruardeanstaffords

my neighbour has a rotty and i don't trust it as it jumps up at my children barking and showing it teeth i know if it could get over she would attack someone as within the having her a week she bite her son and her sons friend and it is still here if i had it it would only have had tobite my child once and it would be gone. i had a police woman here the other day and the rotty nxt dr jumpped up at the fence and went mental at the police woman she had to come onto the grass to get to my front door the police woman is now putting a report in to her boss. these so called neighbours love there dog that much they bread her up in the winter last year and when she had the puppies they docked their tails which i thought was a sick but some one tod the rspca and she is now facing a jail term and i hope she gets set down i can't stand the pair of them come to think about it i can't stand mst people that live in my street as they are back stabbin 2 faced cowards who won't say it to your face and they are in and out ov each others lives like there is no 2morrow

I dont think its the dogs that need licencing its the owners. Everyone here has accepted that its not the breeds fault its the owners fault, so surely thats what needs addressing.

Owners should have to complete tests, on their knowledge and on their handling skills. Like a driving theory and practical test. If they don't pass they aren't allowed to own a dog.

It could be graduated like getting a full driving licence and a HGV licence. For big powerful dogs you'd have to do extra tests to prove you can keep a more powerful dog under control and have a deeper knowledge of their requirements.

It would also serve as a way to educate people on how to treat animals and perhaps kerb animal cruelty as well as attacks.

[quote=sallyanne;35913]I really don't think the answer is to place restrictions on breeds,we have endured 16 yrs of that under the DDA,the breed isn't the problem.


Pit Bulls in particular have been in a firestorm of bad publicity, and
throughout the country Pit Bulls often bear the brunt of breed specific
legislation. One severe or fatal attack can result in either restrictions
or outright banning of this breed (and other breeds) in a community. While
any severe or fatal attack on a person is tragic, there is often a tragic
loss of perspective as to degree of dangerousness associated with this
breed in reaction to a fatality. Virtually any breed of dog can be
implicated in a human fatality.

Punish the Deed, not the Breed!

This link is interesting, Have a read thro .

__________________
On guard.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EEQRdwM4IqQ

[quote=Eolabeo;57461]Thanks for that,it's excellent reading,I have read it before

__________________




Rooney Rumpus DNA Tested L2/HC Clear

Ellies Babe Genetically L2/HC Clear

ruardeanstaffords

[quote=sallyanne;57475]TY sally It really is a good website

__________________
On guard.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EEQRdwM4IqQ

The situation is worse then people imagine.Several years ago a destruction order was obtained under the 1871 Dog Act against two dogs that had bitten a young boy who had trespassed into a private garden.This effectively means that any dog can be destroyed as a dangerous dog no matter where it is .Even if as in the case in Kent the dogs were in the owners own back garden and that the boy had to climb a 5 foot wall in order to get into it.

I couldn't agree more. I would welcome a move in this direction. Your post has captured other issues from a Breeders perspective.

Sue

I can't ignore this one but I don't know how I stand on it. Firstly the boy shouldn't have climbed the fence, unfortunately lads do whether its for a ball, a duff etc. Second problem is how aggressive do people need a dog to be? a bark would alert an owner to an intruder. I would say the dogs were doing their job.

In writing this post I have come to the conclusion that the owner let the dogs down.

I don't agree with euthanasia except to end suffering. With the knowledge and expertise available most behavioral problems can be overcome or managed.

I could be wrong but I believe temperament is bred, behaviour is taught whether its intentional or unintentional.

Sue