Does anyone have any evidence that there is such thing as a "dangerous breed"? I haven't found much info on the web supporting this theory.
Anyone even vaguely familiar with the history of "breeds" can tell you which ones were bred for the express purpose of either hunting and or killing. (Frequently both.)
The Bull Dog was called that because it was bred to fight and kill bulls. Because of the nature of its jaw system it would "latch on" and hang on until the animal attacked stopped moving.
German Shepherds, Dobermans and Rottweilers were bred to hunt humans as well as other animals -- that is why they are considered excellent "GUARD DOGS" today.
Virtually all "Hounds" -- Afgans, Wolfhounds, Foxhounds, Grayhounds, even Snoopy (Beagle) were bred as hunting dogs.
The various pro-dog lobbies contend that no breed of dog is inherently aggressive or dangerous despite their history (frequently over many centuries) of having been breed for exactly those traits. The primary contention is that "nurture" not "nature" is responsible for aggressive and dangerous behavior. (I.e. aggressive behavior is a result of being raised in an environment where fighting and similar behavior is both promoted and rewarded.)
Despite this point of view...
Germany, In 2001, passed Federal legislation banning the import of the pit bull, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier and bull terrier, as well as crossbreeds of these dogs.
http://www.af.mil/news/jun2001/n20010613_0797.shtml
Austrailia, in 2003, "restricted" - dogo Argentino (Argentinian fighting dog); fila Brasileiro (Brazilian fighting dog); Japanese tosa; American pit bull terrier and pit bull terrier breeds.�
http://www.melville.wa.gov.au/service_areas/rangers/dog-law.html
While nurture vs nature may be a valid argument, the fact remains that the dog is an animal. While there may be a system to judge aberrant behavior in humans, not only is there no such system for animals, but the vast majority of the population does not consider human beings and animals to be equivalent.
One obvious solution is to make the human responsible for the behavior of the "owned" animal... but most humans would be shocked to be locked up by applying "human standards of behavior" to animals. After all, a human male or female defecating or urinating on public streets is considered not only unacceptable behavior, but a public health hazard as well, and is grounds for arrest -- yet that behavior is tolerated, no, strongly encouraged, for the animal. So it makes perfect sense that the use of an animal to commit a crime against a person therefore should be tolerated and considered acceptable behavior.
In support of the nurture argument, one must consider that the dog is NOT an Urban creature by nature. It is a product of an Agrarian past and despite "dog mills" and other breeding transgressions, the "best" dogs are those bred and raised in just such a non-urban setting -- any serious dog owner will tell you that. One need only look at the various calls for "dog parks" to understand that an Urban life style is NOT something which is acceptable to a dog. That a dog would become aggressive by being kept "pent-up" in some efficiency apartment or even a large house, is nor particularly surprising. The term usually applied is Cabin Fever.
Needless to say, this does not even begin to deal with the fact that one of Queen Elizabeth's Corgis was killed by her daughter's Pit Bull (Bull Terrier) on Christmas Eve as the family gathered at Windsor Castle.
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/nation/7567597.htm
T.T.F.N. William H. Magill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
