Views?

http://www.thecomet.net/content/comet/news/story.aspx?brand=CMTOnline&category=newsbiggles&tBrand=herts24&tCategory=newscomnew&itemid=WEED24%20May%202007%2015%3A38%3A00%3A130

They have not mentioned other restrictions such as muzzling in public but perhaps they have been applied.  The owner seems to have had difficulty keeping it in in the past so not sure that would be totally effective in ensuring this would not happen again though.  I can't really understand why it is not being destroyed.
I wonder what makes someone pay a fortune to import a dog and then not take complete measures to keep it safe let alone the public.

My thoughts exactly.  Also, I wondered if the outcome for the dog would have been different had it attacked the man's children instead.  If so, why?

My next question which I don't know the answer to is how realistic is it to assume that castration will make a difference? I thought castration could make a difference if it was dog on dog aggression but dog on people attacks?

I wonder if the whole raft of restriction imposed on a dog that has been found guilty under the Dangerous Dogs Act have been applied but as it is just the neutering that has a time limit on it, ie muzzling, lead walking etc will be immediately effective, this is what the press has picked up on.  If so it's just poor reporting really.

What on earth does neutering have to do with this kind of behaviour? Very confusing outcome. :-(

Think it's to make sure that this dog can never be bred with!!  Why oh why do irresponsible people have to have dogs

Sarah.

Especially a kangal - very hard dogs to look after, a lot of work.  Although I find the description of a "fighting dog" irritating - they're guardians, not fighting dogs.  Different thing.

What really disturbs me is the mention of him *planning* to have 6ft fencing put up - with a dog like that 6ft is a given before you get it.  They might be big but they're agile - I'd dearly love on but with 42" fences, I wouldn't even consider it.

Yeah, guess I should have worded it better. Neutering will not make this a safe dog; just prevent it from having puppies. I'm just shocked that the only restriction they mention, on a dog that has put someone in the hospital, is castration.

I would never descriobe that dog as "a fighting dog looking like a cross between a rottweiler and a St Bernard "

that was my first thought too brainless.  I'm struggling to see either dog in it and thought they might have used the wrong photo.

No, that photo is definitely a kangal - and they have neither st. bernard or rotti in them!  I suspect the author is trying to either describe it in a way that might be more familiar to people (kangals not being exactly common in the UK), or in a way that would make it more scary - probably both.

Yes but I would neve think of describng a kangal thus, as it bears no resemblance to a combination of those breeds.