• Daikusa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’ll take the dogs that are less prone to “prey drive” thank you very much. You don’t really see Goldens or Bassetts mauling small creatures or humans.

    • Redredme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Tbh amstaffs are quite low on the prey drive. Small terriers, dachshunds, schnauzers, pointers, setters and dalmatians on the other hand have a very big prey drive.

      I mean, they are not called hunting dogs, retriever, setter or pointers for nothing. And small terriers have for centuries been bred to kill every rat, mice and what have you in their vincinity.

      But yeah, in the end all dogs are predators. And if you let them go unchecked bad things will happen. Especially when you have a powerful breed.

      Cats do the same BTW. But for some reason we’re OK with dead mice and birds around the house.

      All in all its the same discussion as with guns (and cars): guns don’t kill people, people kill people. And with dogs it’s more or less the same: bad or owners who are Inattentive will Allmost always result in big problems.

      And while I do love amstaffs, they can be such chill and fun hunks of love, I can’t deny that they do real damage, more damage when left unchecked and we should probably regulate ownership like with guns and cars.

      I do not think outright banning a breed is the solution. Because other breeds are just as susceptible to bad ownership. It will not solve it. The problem will just move away from amstaffs back too rottweilers and dobermans. Or another big powerful breed.

      Like with guns we should make it harder for the assholes to acquire one. And like with cars you should prove yourself to be able to take care of one.