Quote:
Originally Posted by Table 5
Bernards and Danes perhaps not (although those are fairly rare breeds in the big picture) but Labradors, one of the more popular breeds around here, are responsible for a lot of bites. They may not cause fatal maulings, but it doesn't mean they don't do damage or aren't an annoyance to others. In my experience (dad is a vet, and we've had tons of pets over the years), Labs and Retrievers especially get more unpredictable when they get older.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-claims.html
I agree that we should phase out Pit Bulls, but it doesn't mean that other dogs can't be problems either. Especially when it's not always clear what breed a dog is. |
I don't disagree that all dogs carry risk. A lot of dogs go pretty nuts as they got older, and suffer from dimensia-like symptoms that make them more dangerous. I'd much rather deal with a crazed labrador retriever than a crazed pitbull. Once again, all dogs carry a risk, not all dogs are bred to kill other things.
Retriever dogs have instincts that will cause them to bite, but not maul. They are bred to pursue birds and small game. Pit bulls are designed to have maximum bite force and chomp down on necks and faces and not let go until their opponent is dead. Once again, I just don't see why anyone needs a dog that has been bred to have maximum bite force and upper body strength. Couldn't you just have a dog that doesn't have those characteristics that accomplishes the exact same companion-type role?
I just don't understand it. There are so many things that people do that pose a risk to other people. We normally enforce restrictions that mitigate these risks....except with pit bulls, where you can just go nuts and own a killing machine. Just cause...you like it.