Why? Why defend a blanket blunt solution after undergoing so much time to develop a proper, clear, definition to what a potentially dangerous animal is and what an actually dangerous animal is? Why label an animal as a danger just because it was born?
Dobermans, Boxers and Great Danes were viewed as dangerous breeds in the 90’s.
Belgian Mallinois and German Shepherds garnered a bad reputation due to their association with police and military forces.
Catahoula Leopard Dogs have killed people in the US.
Border Collies and Australian Cattle Dogs are well known to bite, particularly children, due to their herding background.
Even Golden Retrievers and Labradors have been deemed dangerous at some point.
And then there are all the other breeds, less known, that have maimed or killed and never got any attention for it. And all the other breeds that are as powerful or more than the list I shared and just haven’t met the criteria of having attacked someone and got the bad press. There are far more powerful dogs in the world than those in that list, breeds specifically developed to chase, hunt and/or fight other animals that are not in it. In Italy, one of my national breeds has been listed as dangerous and controlled; no such concern here as no bad episodes have occurred and we have a higher number of such dogs here, pure bred and crossed.
But you did said something correct: casually.
The biggest issue is most people never bother to properly care for their animal companions. They are pampered as puppies, while they are cute and docile, then more easily managed by being chained or confined to a back yard or a fenced area and overlooked. They become a nuisance, something that consumes time and energy, people say they “don’t have”.
That is what causes most of the problems regarding dogs.
Based country. Euthanise them all I say.
Why? Why defend a blanket blunt solution after undergoing so much time to develop a proper, clear, definition to what a potentially dangerous animal is and what an actually dangerous animal is? Why label an animal as a danger just because it was born?
You don’t educate humans, dogs get punished.
There is no good reason to own any of those breeds casually
Oh, I like that reasoning.
Shall we widen the lens then?
Dobermans, Boxers and Great Danes were viewed as dangerous breeds in the 90’s. Belgian Mallinois and German Shepherds garnered a bad reputation due to their association with police and military forces. Catahoula Leopard Dogs have killed people in the US. Border Collies and Australian Cattle Dogs are well known to bite, particularly children, due to their herding background. Even Golden Retrievers and Labradors have been deemed dangerous at some point.
And then there are all the other breeds, less known, that have maimed or killed and never got any attention for it. And all the other breeds that are as powerful or more than the list I shared and just haven’t met the criteria of having attacked someone and got the bad press. There are far more powerful dogs in the world than those in that list, breeds specifically developed to chase, hunt and/or fight other animals that are not in it. In Italy, one of my national breeds has been listed as dangerous and controlled; no such concern here as no bad episodes have occurred and we have a higher number of such dogs here, pure bred and crossed.
But you did said something correct: casually.
The biggest issue is most people never bother to properly care for their animal companions. They are pampered as puppies, while they are cute and docile, then more easily managed by being chained or confined to a back yard or a fenced area and overlooked. They become a nuisance, something that consumes time and energy, people say they “don’t have”.
That is what causes most of the problems regarding dogs.
German Shepherds should require a comprehensive licence gained from training IMHO