So, I noticed something while doing an assignment for my studies.
In western australia, where I live, there are 2 categories of sorts for risky dogs.
One is restricted Breeds. A restricted breed is a breed of dog considered a risk to the public, i.e. a pit bull. Alot of restrictions apply to these dogs, such as muzzles (at all times except in "prescribed enclosures", handler age limits, banning from certain areas, etc.
The other is dangerous dogs. A dangerous dog is an individual dog that has been agressive, attacked people/animals, etc, and has as a result been declared a dangerous dog. A dangerous dog only has to be muzzled.
So, my question is, using an example.
Say there is in a room, a restricted dog (a normal, calm pit bull for arguments sake) and a dangerous dog (a kelpie which bit 3 people and killed 2 beloved pets, and growls and snaps at anyone who comes near,also for arguments sake). Which dog should just be muzzled, and which should have a muzzle, special collar, approved handler and be confined to certain areas? The one who has alot of cousins that are aggressive, and could possibly be aggressive? Or the dog that has been, and is right now, absolutely, certainly aggressive? Which dog should I be more worried about?
I tried to explain this to my parents. They kept going on about the restricted dogs being a group and how they are statistically more dangerous, and kept saying that they understood my point but disagreed, and then my dad called me a f***wit. I dont see how those responses even have anything to do with this.
Well, just venting.
In western australia, where I live, there are 2 categories of sorts for risky dogs.
One is restricted Breeds. A restricted breed is a breed of dog considered a risk to the public, i.e. a pit bull. Alot of restrictions apply to these dogs, such as muzzles (at all times except in "prescribed enclosures", handler age limits, banning from certain areas, etc.
The other is dangerous dogs. A dangerous dog is an individual dog that has been agressive, attacked people/animals, etc, and has as a result been declared a dangerous dog. A dangerous dog only has to be muzzled.
So, my question is, using an example.
Say there is in a room, a restricted dog (a normal, calm pit bull for arguments sake) and a dangerous dog (a kelpie which bit 3 people and killed 2 beloved pets, and growls and snaps at anyone who comes near,also for arguments sake). Which dog should just be muzzled, and which should have a muzzle, special collar, approved handler and be confined to certain areas? The one who has alot of cousins that are aggressive, and could possibly be aggressive? Or the dog that has been, and is right now, absolutely, certainly aggressive? Which dog should I be more worried about?
I tried to explain this to my parents. They kept going on about the restricted dogs being a group and how they are statistically more dangerous, and kept saying that they understood my point but disagreed, and then my dad called me a f***wit. I dont see how those responses even have anything to do with this.
Well, just venting.