My elder sister is a dog lover, and she has asked me to sign a petition to change the media portrayal on so-called 'aggressive breeds of dog.' This would include Pit-bull terriers, Rottweilers, Dobermans et.c

 

Her argument is, that the owner is responsible for the temperament of the dog, and it's unfair to ban certain breeds, and have more media attention on certain breeds, if it's solely the owner that's responsible for the dogs’ temperament. She says she has some stats that put Alsations, and Jack Russells and surprisingly Collies at the top of the list, but I havn't seen the source of these stats, so I'm clueless as to their credibility. Also you have to take stats with a pinch of salt, due to the popularity of certain breeds et.c

 

Now, I'm not going to sign a petition just because 'it's my sister', so are certain breeds inherently aggressive, is there hard evidence that proper training and care whatever breed of dog it is, will ensure they won't attack, or is it impossible to say.

 

I'm not an expert at all in this area, so can anyone enlighten me, and I'll pass the info onto my sister...although she is very stubborn. (sorry sis)

I dont know if this would help.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5006477/

If she is really a dog lover, then she must know that different breeds behave differently, and that some have greater tendencies towards aggression. So I don't get the "solely the responsibility of the owner" bit. Largely, maybe, but solely?

 

Also, it's not all about temperment. There's a reason those breeds are used as attack dogs: they're good at it. They were, in fact, bred for it. In effect, they're living weapons, designed to fight. The meanest jack russel terrier in the world is not going to be as dangerous as an amicable pit bull.

It's not that it's bad or anything but if you step on a tail, you'd rather not be one of the attack breeds. It's not what they do in their spare time, it's what they do when they are really upset.

 

Out here these breeds are regulated, you need to declare each dog and get a paper individually to own one. Once in the books, you are obligated to special security measures - e.g. never let the dog off the leash, don't allow it to be accompanied by a child, never untied in public places, etc.

Thanks all for your responses.

 

If she is really a dog lover, then she must know that different breeds behave differently, and that some have greater tendencies towards aggression. So I don't get the "solely the responsibility of the owner" bit. Largely, maybe, but solely?

 

This was actually the first thing I thought when she asked me, she's quite a fan of the more assertive type of dog (single mum, so could be a security thing...so a bit bias towards them) I just wanted clarification that some breeds are inherently more aggressive, and that it wasn't the media preying on the same newsworthy story, as the tabloids do regularly over here. A pitbull or rottweiler attack, grabs more attention in the press, than somebody being attacked by a collie.

 

Also, it's not all about temperment. There's a reason those breeds are used as attack dogs: they're good at it. They were, in fact, bred for it. In effect, they're living weapons, designed to fight.

 

Again, this is what I thought, I just wasn't sure if (despite a certain breeds history) that certain care could alleviate any aggresive behaviour towards a family member for example. I'm not really up on dog training techniques et.c But my suspicions have been confirmed, so no signature.