American Bulldog

[Roar87]

I grew up around German Sheperds, I'd get one of those. Highly intelligent, loyal, and they have the added bonus of being capable of defending the house/family if needed.

My girlfriend grew up with a Doberman and on more than one occassion it stopped burglars from breaking in, and those were occassions when my girlfriends mum was home alone with 2 small children. The fact is the vast majority of people aren't going to break into a home where there's a large Dog that's capable of tackling an adult male. They'll just go to a different house.

 

[Dis86]

An alarm is going to do jack where I live. No one would hear it and if it was linked up to a monitoring service it'd take a good 15-25 mins for the police to get to the house.

You live in Essex. Not Alaska. Up here in the sticks it doesn't take police that long to arrive.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

What is your new dog going to do that your current dogs already dont?

Lets not fool ourselves into thinking that this is for security or companionship. You want this dog for peace of mind, despite the risk to your child, however small.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

If you need a guard dog for protection and security purposes then that is a vastly different question to the one you're asking, OP, and there are people who will advise you on how that works. There are at least two posters on this forum - well, Motors, mostly - who have required this set up.

I don't think that's the case so you should perhaps think about what benefit and enjoyment another dog would bring you and use that as your measure.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Snakes kill loads of people every year, yet people still keep them as pets...
Horses apparently kill people so often that riding is reckoned to be more dangerous than motorcycling...
Not too many pet hippos, but still people try...

End of the day, if dogs were as dangerous as people make out, humanity would never have successfully adopted them as pets and made them a part of our daily lives for thousands of years.

Given that your lives revolve around things like flammable gas hardware, electrical components, sharp edges, firearms (for some of us) and combustion engines... perhaps even combinations of these, often created on a lazy Friday afternoon by the lowest bidder - Harping on about dangerously unpredictable dogs seems a bit silly, don't you think...?
Especially when most of that danger is averted by a bit of dilligent research, good understanding and correct handling.... for all the above.

 

[Phate]

Can't comment about the American Bulldog as I have no experience and you know I'm not exactly a big dog fan mate

But when my sister lived with me she had/has a German Shepard X Rottweiler and whilst it is indeed a lunatic and belonged on a large piece of land (where it now lives ) at night if so much as a moth came into the garden the growl that went through the house was a mixture of frightening and reassuring!

If it were me I'd get a German Shepard. The temperament of them is excellent. She was super friendly, put up with my cat bring grumpy when he didn't want to play, and protective of us all as well. Never any worries of anyone coming over if the dog was indoors.

Also if you spoke to her she might know a good breeder/person in Ireland to help you find one

 

[webhound]

Rhodesian Ridgeback is your answer. Very good guard dogs, aloof with strangers, very protective of their owners and very well tempered.

 

[thep02]

Are you a chav ?

Such an uncouth question leaves me worried that you might be from the lower orders.

 

[Eurofighter]

I would only get a dog that didn't look like it could kill me.

 

[Scam]

Snakes kill loads of people every year, yet people still keep them as pets... (snip)

But the real question is, why should he get a 'potentially' dangerous dog, when there are a huge amount of other options? If someone offered you two glasses of water and said one had a poison in it which had 50% chance of killing you, would you choose that glass? No, you'd choose the glass with nothing in it. Why take the risk? Especially with his children. It all seems a bit nonsensical. He already has two dogs which I'd wager is enough to put off 99% of any potential burglars regardless of what breed they are. Therefore the reason for getting a 'dangerous' dog is flawed.

 

[Mr Jack]

Just one more, with the house I have now and not trying to sound snobby, I need a dog with a bit more of a presence than my current dogs mainly to act as a deterrent but obviously be a good family dog too.

Having an effective guard dog and a dog that's a good family pet are contradictory aims. The best you can hope for is a dog that barks enthusiastically and then greets your burglar with a wagging tail.

 

[kaptainmarc]

If you want a dog with presence get a tibetan mastiff

 

[neil_g]

a rare occasion where i agree with the RSPCA..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...t-has-failed-to-keep-people-safe-warns-rspca/

"Over the past two years the charity has been forced to put down 336 dogs, while Battersea Dogs Home, which is also critical of the law, has put down 91 in the last 12 months."

"of the 30 people killed by dogs since 1991, 21 were by breeds not banned under the act, according to RSPCA"

 

[Mr Jack]

"of the 30 people killed by dogs since 1991, 21 were by breeds not banned under the act, according to RSPCA"

To be honest this is a pretty daft statistic. What percentage of dogs are of banned breeds? I'm going to bet it's less that 30% of the dog population. That means that these breeds are disproportionately responsible for deaths, probably hugely so. The impact of the law could only be measured by knowing how many would have been killed by dogs without the ban, and the presumably higher number of deaths.

(Not that I'm actually much in favour of the ban, I think it places responsibility in the wrong place and we need to start actually jailing people when their dogs attack instead of going "oh, their niece/nephew/grandchild/child died; they've suffered enough")

 

[dowie]

Yup and of those not banned by the act how many are staffies, bull terriers etc..

pit bull types kill a disproportionately high number of people, we don't currently ban all 'pit bull' type dogs

if the above quote by neil_g was supposed to be in support of dangerous breeds it is a rather dubious argument

 

[ttaskmaster]

Rhodesian Ridgeback is your answer. Very good guard dogs, aloof with strangers, very protective of their owners and very well tempered.

But still need a LOT of attention and exercise.

But the real question is, why should he get a 'potentially' dangerous dog, when there are a huge amount of other options?

1/. Every dog is 'potentially' dangerous. His other options are down the route of alarms, shotguns and electrified fences.

2/. Yes, there are hundreds of other breeds that are not officially listed as 'potentially dangerous'... Labradors, well known for their family-friendly qualities and calm suitability as Guide Dogs, are also very high on the Bite List...

3/. All three of my dogs are breeds of bad temperament... under the wrong circumstances.

If someone offered you two glasses of water and said one had a poison in it which had 50% chance of killing you, would you choose that glass?

If someone told you you're twice as likely to die from a wasp sting than being bitten by a dog, would you still go outside?
Or if you were 35 times more likely to choke on a hot dog, would you ever eat one again?

No, you'd choose the glass with nothing in it. Why take the risk?

So you're advocating what... a toothless, legless dog for the OP?
A dog with all its dangerous bits removed?
A cat, perhaps?
Maybe one of those Guard Chinchillas?

He already has two dogs which I'd wager is enough to put off 99% of any potential burglars regardless of what breed they are.

You put the tinny, yappy "arf arf" barks of his little dogs up against the beefy, booming, deep-chested "RROOOOOOWFFF!!" of my Lab and see which one scares a burglar more....

Therefore the reason for getting a 'dangerous' dog is flawed.

"We will never live in a world without dog bites or risks, nor will we ever live in a world without irresponsible people. We can, though, live in a world where dogs are judged as individuals and by their actions rather than their appearance, and owners are held accountable for the actions of their dogs".

The best you can hope for is a dog that barks enthusiastically and then greets your burglar with a wagging tail.

That's pretty much all a Guard Dog would do - It guards, it doesn't attack.
Well... technically, a 'Guard' dog would intercept the stranger and drive them off or restrain them, but this can result in more conflict and your dog could get hurt.
Ideally you want a Watch Dog, that purely alerts you to intruders and does not stop barking until you tell it to.
Either way, both types would likely be family-friendly and, properly trained, would only kick off on those it does not recognise.

Yup and of those not banned by the act how many are staffies, bull terriers etc..

How many only look like those, but are instead purposely crossbred to make them dangerous?

 

[Scam]

So you're advocating what... a toothless, legless dog for the OP?

Let's ignore the bit about the dog being more or less likely to attack someone for a moment. The point is that if it does, the risk of serious injury is much higher with one of these dogs.

You put the tinny, yappy "arf arf" barks of his little dogs up against the beefy, booming, deep-chested "RROOOOOOWFFF!!" of my Lab and see which one scares a burglar more....

I don't understand why you need to scare a burglar. 99% of burglars will run as soon as they are disturbed, whether it's an alarm or a jack russell With that in mind there is no advantage to getting a 'big' dog.

 

[neil_g]

if the above quote by neil_g was supposed to be in support of dangerous breeds it is a rather dubious argument

i was agreeing that the current "dangerous dogs" policy is whoa fully out of date.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

I don't understand why you need to scare a burglar. 99% of burglars will run as soon as they are disturbed, whether it's an alarm or a jack russell With that in mind there is no advantage to getting a 'big' dog.

This really.

OP thinks he needs another dog for security but in reality he does not.

A thief steals with the intent of being undetected. Whether it is 2 small dogs, 3 large dogs or a bear, he wants to avoid getting caught. Unless he knows you and you have something specific he wants that cant be gotten elsewhere, i dont see why more dogs will make any difference to being susceptible to theft.

The breed argument doesnt really come into it, as there is always a risk, no matter how small. All it takes is being overexcited/playful or a fright and for the child to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. At the end of the day, there really is nothing to be gained by getting another pooch from a security perspective.

If OP wants to justify getting one, companionship makes a legitimately good reason but security does not.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Let's ignore the bit about the dog being more or less likely to attack someone for a moment. The point is that if it does, the risk of serious injury is much higher with one of these dogs.

If, if, if... If a special forces soldier happens to come back from the war with PTSD and flip out, the risk of serious injury to local society is much higher than with a normal soldier... does that mean we get rid of the SAS?
Or do we screen each individual and check them over before releasing them among vulnerable civillians?

I don't understand why you need to scare a burglar. 99% of burglars will run as soon as they are disturbed, whether it's an alarm or a jack russell With that in mind there is no advantage to getting a 'big' dog.

Chances are they'll have 'cased your joint' first and identified it as the easier target in your area, so they'll know you have a little yapper-type dog. These are far easier to stomp on and shut up than a hoofing great Labrador or even a Collie, as well as more likely to be yapping all day anyway and thus ignored by the neighbours.