Tweet
The deal with dogs is that the degree to which they are dangerous depends on a number of factors.
Small dogs are unable to harm humans. My family owns fox terriers. They jump up against people (raking the persons legs with their claws), they will nip at fingers (one will also playfully nip at noses which get too close
), two of them will bite hands, one used to be when she wanted to be left alone, the other as a form of playfighting. My siblings and I never had a problem with this biting (in fact enjoyed it as a test of resolve), but the terriers would tend to teach the cousins kids a valuable (and entertaining!) lesson about personal space.
A larger dog which nips at a child because it feels threatened is far more capable of actually hurting the child. A friend had a lab which had the habit of greeting people (including strangers) by placing his paws on their chest, not a problem for teens and adults, but no doubt he caused his owners fits around children and elderly.
Many owners will rassle with their full-size dog, with the dog playbiting the owner on the arms, typically with plenty of growling. All fun, games and mutual exercise in one context, but potentially terrifying in another if the dog concludes it's okay to rassle with people other than his master - or the contrary case, where a stranger (to the dog) decides it's okay to rassle with the dog, but the dog thinks it's being attacked.
As well as physical capabilities, temperament of the breed is extremely important.
Some breeds are bred to attack (hunting dogs) and don't understand submission (fighting dogs), pit bulls have both these "qualities". Other breeds however will strongly prefer to use intimidation (sheep dogs) with attacking being strongly selected against, while all dogs are loyal, some breeds are naturally submissive to all humans, others aren't (wolves). Dogs which default to intimidation and/or submission when threatened have a "fail safe" against inadequate training/conditioning, they may scare people, but generally wont maul them. Dogs which default to attacking have no such failsafe, if the Dog feels threatened and/or doesn't know how to act : Bam, it's on!
This is really the thing. The owner of a small terrier can be as "irresponsible" with training as they like, because the little dog can't possible hurt a human however badly it behaves and in general it's antics will be considered endearing or amusing, since they are really only capable of causing indignation and crying rather than gaping wounds and broken bones (that's not to say that small dogs can't terrorize people - they can - but half the onus will be on the person to not be terrorized rather than the dog to not terrorize).
At the other end of the spectrum, a breed with the physical capabilities and the temperament to cause gross physical trauma absolutely requires good training and control.
It gets even more complicated with crossbreeds, which are a real wildcard in terms of how they'll act.
In any case, it's ultimately a combination of responsibilities - in choosing an appropriate breed and in properly caring for it.
The problem is in irresponsible people who choose aggressive dogs but are unwilling to properly care for them (ie aggressive dogs are not the problem, nor are irresponsible people, it's just when the two are combined). It's easier to legislate against dogs than irresponsibility.
Small dogs are unable to harm humans. My family owns fox terriers. They jump up against people (raking the persons legs with their claws), they will nip at fingers (one will also playfully nip at noses which get too close
), two of them will bite hands, one used to be when she wanted to be left alone, the other as a form of playfighting. My siblings and I never had a problem with this biting (in fact enjoyed it as a test of resolve), but the terriers would tend to teach the cousins kids a valuable (and entertaining!) lesson about personal space.A larger dog which nips at a child because it feels threatened is far more capable of actually hurting the child. A friend had a lab which had the habit of greeting people (including strangers) by placing his paws on their chest, not a problem for teens and adults, but no doubt he caused his owners fits around children and elderly.
Many owners will rassle with their full-size dog, with the dog playbiting the owner on the arms, typically with plenty of growling. All fun, games and mutual exercise in one context, but potentially terrifying in another if the dog concludes it's okay to rassle with people other than his master - or the contrary case, where a stranger (to the dog) decides it's okay to rassle with the dog, but the dog thinks it's being attacked.
As well as physical capabilities, temperament of the breed is extremely important.
Some breeds are bred to attack (hunting dogs) and don't understand submission (fighting dogs), pit bulls have both these "qualities". Other breeds however will strongly prefer to use intimidation (sheep dogs) with attacking being strongly selected against, while all dogs are loyal, some breeds are naturally submissive to all humans, others aren't (wolves). Dogs which default to intimidation and/or submission when threatened have a "fail safe" against inadequate training/conditioning, they may scare people, but generally wont maul them. Dogs which default to attacking have no such failsafe, if the Dog feels threatened and/or doesn't know how to act : Bam, it's on!
This is really the thing. The owner of a small terrier can be as "irresponsible" with training as they like, because the little dog can't possible hurt a human however badly it behaves and in general it's antics will be considered endearing or amusing, since they are really only capable of causing indignation and crying rather than gaping wounds and broken bones (that's not to say that small dogs can't terrorize people - they can - but half the onus will be on the person to not be terrorized rather than the dog to not terrorize).
At the other end of the spectrum, a breed with the physical capabilities and the temperament to cause gross physical trauma absolutely requires good training and control.
It gets even more complicated with crossbreeds, which are a real wildcard in terms of how they'll act.
In any case, it's ultimately a combination of responsibilities - in choosing an appropriate breed and in properly caring for it.
The problem is in irresponsible people who choose aggressive dogs but are unwilling to properly care for them (ie aggressive dogs are not the problem, nor are irresponsible people, it's just when the two are combined). It's easier to legislate against dogs than irresponsibility.
Comment