Oct 27, 2007

Dangerous dog laws – is your dog safe?

When councils around the world started pushing “dangerous dog” laws, I thought it was only a matter time before the more popular big breeds, like German Shepherds, would make it onto the list.
In July, Dublin’s City Council introduced an immediate ban on 11 breeds of dog from all council housing and public areas. The German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Doberman, Rhodesian Ridgeback and Staffordshire Terrier, among others, were on the list.

If you read through web forums, you’ll find a clash of opinions over the subject of Breed Specific Legislation (BSL). You will sense the overwhelming passion for dogs, no matter what breed. People are demanding to know why innocent dogs have to suffer for the irresponsible actions of some dog owners. Many are crying “ban the deed, not the breed” in response to international studies that report such legislation does not work.
Dogs Life magazine has been regularly printing articles on BSL, suggesting alternatives by trainers and pet experts from around the world. We have received more ideas from readers around Australia and New Zealand, from licensing dog owners to harsher punishment for dog owners, not the dogs.
For owners of the Chihuahua or Maltese, is your dog safe from these laws? It’s only a matter of time …


Anonymous said...

BSl is wrong... just wrong. It's racism, against dogs! If it is so wrong to just call a dark skinned person 'black', then can someone PLEASE tell me how it is acceptable to restrict the ownership of and sometimes kill dogs, just because of their breed?!

~ * Mel * ~

Anonymous said...

Its a joke. My mother-in-law's Maltese has shed more blood from various visitors to her house (And people passing a little too close to the fence) than any dog I have ever known. Not a week goes by between it biting someone, but because it's barely more than a scratch to most people, it's just laughed off and nothing is done about it.

Just because a Ridgeback, Rottweiler, or even German Shepherd can cause a nasty bite, or even death, why ban them all based on very rare attacks, when dogs like the MIL's one are tolerated without a second thought?

Ban dogs that act aggressive towards others, fine, but not based on breed - base it in the temprament of the individual dog!

I would no more want to ban German Shepherds from my town based on one attack than I would want to ban all Vietnamese people from town based on one robbery that occurred recently!

Anonymous said...

i would applaud if my local council banned them, if you want to have a large dog THEN GO LIVE ON A FARM, not in suburbia, i am sick of being woken up a night by some large dog who barks at night the owners are so inconsiderate of other people in the neighborhood

Hey David its no joke, your mother in law sounds like a strange person if she has a pet that attacks people every week, who cares if it was just a scratch the Maltese should be put down too, most dog owners are so selfish.........

Anonymous said...

BSL is so mean and wrong. A dog breed shouldn't be banned because one single dog attacked someone. In the March/April (the issue with the goldie on the front) my letter is puplished as letter of the month and it's worth reading as it is so true. Person that has been attacked by a GSD you have the right to be scared of big dogs but you can't blame them. If a asian person murdered someone we don't ban asian people!! It makes me so angry that people are blaming the breed not lazy owners that don't train their dogs or encourge bad behavior!! I own 2 big dogs in a surberbian area and they never bark so we never consider moving to a farm! And small little yappy dogs are the noisy ones at night, so Mr "A Big GSD attacked me, lets ban them" you have just mad an emine, by the way you are so wrong if you think BSl will stop dog attacks, it will only make very angry dog-lovers!!!

Anonymous said...

I live in a small rural town, and recently a pug puppy was dragged off the back of the ute it was sitting in by a Mastiff/Rhodesian Ridgeback cross (which I have seen wandering many times) and killed. When I heard this I reported the dog to the council, being assured that the pugs owner was to do the same thing.
Council stated that they could do nothing until the pugs owner reported the attack, even though I was reporting the dog for wandering. Up to now, no one has reported this attack to council except myself, the dog is still roaming loose,seems to me that the fault in this case lies with the owners of both dogs, as well as the council. I told them where the dog lived, but as far as I know no one has been to see the owner. I have 3 tiny Yorkshire Terriers, and am terrified now to even let them out into the backyard on their own in case this mongrel jumps the fence and attacks them. WHY do peole insist on letting their dogs roam free? They are a danger to everyone and themselves, it's not the breed, it IS the owners, and I feel that councils are too lax with these owners, maybe because they themselves are tied up in bureacratic tape. The laws need changing, and councils given more power to remove and hold dangerous dogs.