Okay so I have a 2 year old male husky who is as sweet as can be. Like most of you on here you love your huskies more than anything in the world. I can't wrap my head around why they are under the "aggressive dogs" list!? Trying to find an apartment that will accept them has been torture and it's honestly breaking my heart! Is there anyway to get them off this list? letters to write? or something to get them off? it just doesn't make any sense to me!? I have never ran into an aggressive husky! If anyone knows ANY information please let me know! it's so outrageous to me!
Thank you!

I'm not sure how to get them off the list. It may go by state since the list is state by state. I live in Missouri and they aren't on an aggressive breeds list here unless they have wolf in them. Then your home insurance goes through the roof.

I think your sentiment is noble and I fully support fighting any unwarranted prejudice, but is it really that hard to imagine why they are notably problematic and on these types of lists?

They are extremely high maintenance in terms of their needs for exercise and stimulation (which is to say most people who own one don't do a very good job of meeting their needs and thus they become problematic), they are mouthy in both the verbal and physical sense, and they are known escape artists who dig and destroy things to try to get out and escape their boredom and lack of stimulation.  

I think if you are going to accomplish your goal, which I support, your real mission should be educating more people to NOT get a Husky in the first place without being fully informed and committed and then educating people who have them about all the ways of meeting their non-negotiable needs: running, mouthing, chewing, digging, working, stimulation...etc.  

Not to mention educating people of the difference between true aggression and a-dog-whose-acting-out-because-his-needs-are-not-being-met.

Just my thoughts.  

Great thread.

Thank you for your support. I am so young I honestly do not know where to start! that brings me up to another thing. How does the breed restrictions thing work? Is it by state or city? Again any help is amazing.

It is possible to be just a city ordinance, so for example the city of Seattle may prevent ownership of pit bulls due to a local city ordinance but if you live out in the woods in Washington State you can have one.

Those are local laws. Insurance companies can also just have restrictions or stratification of their rates based on breed on their own, so if you live wherever and buy their insurance you are going to be subjected to their policies. That is not a locally enforced ordinance but a condition of you buying insurance through that company.

Ha, so in that sense, bribe the local city council like anyone else who wants to get something done politically.

seattlesibe wrote:

Ha, so in that sense, bribe the local city council like anyone else who wants to get something done politically.  

I was really tempted to click 'good advice' on that one...

I like to think I'm not cynical just not-naive

seattlesibe wrote:

I think your sentiment is noble and I fully support fighting any unwarranted prejudice, but is it really that hard to imagine why they are notably problematic and on these types of lists?

They are extremely high maintenance in terms of their needs for exercise and stimulation (which is to say most people who own one don't do a very good job of meeting their needs and thus they become problematic), they are mouthy in both the verbal and physical sense, and they are known escape artists who dig and destroy things to try to get out and escape their boredom and lack of stimulation.  

I think if you are going to accomplish your goal, which I support, your real mission should be educating more people to NOT get a Husky in the first place without being fully informed and committed and then educating people who have them about all the ways of meeting their non-negotiable needs: running, mouthing, chewing, digging, working, stimulation...etc.  

Not to mention educating people of the difference between true aggression and a-dog-whose-acting-out-because-his-needs-are-not-being-met.

Just my thoughts.  

Great thread.

Very well thought out and good point made that just because we adore husky's doesn't mean we should have one or are capable of having one.  I think that point gets overlooked too much, after all, my wifes' favorite animal is a Elephant and we ain't getten' one!

yeah sometimes I wisih they weren't so beautiful because then we would see less of them in pounds in less of them on TV shows talking about how destructive and problematic they are. and the chances are pretty good they wouldn't be on these lists all the time

Education. Education. Education. That's the only thing we really can do.

And get rid of those "It's all how you raise them" people. They're not helping either.

There's a lot of damage done. by BAD breeders and hardcore rescue/sanctuary people that are anti-breeder. Probably the best thing the public could do is start to recognize dangerous dogs and not tolerate dangerous dogs.

Education implies intelligence and the majority of the human race is definately lacking of it, so I don´t think that things like this will ever change.
The fact that there are alot of problem dogs of any breed out there shows that alot and I mean ALOT of people that have dogs shouldn´t have one.
Passing a test before you are allowed to own a dog would help maybe. This test should be specialized on the breed you want to have.

Without more responsible dog/pet owners some breeds will stay on such lists forever.

^ quoted for truth.

It's an interesting concept, but no one would agree on what the test should include - if it were breed specific - since there are SO many different opinions on breeds and their politics are so extensive. Even major groups that would be brought in to develop a test would have one heck of a time agreeing on it.

Yes it would be difficult indeed. Problem about it is politicians always support lobbies, but as for Huskies mushers wouldn´t be the right ones creating a test for the breed, because it should be about what a dog really needs not what some people want them to need.

this is one of the many inherent problems of democratic consensus.

dahowlers wrote:

And get rid of those "It's all how you raise them" people. They're not helping either.

Just out of curiosity, what is your objection to this line of thinking? Do you disagree with the thought or the way it's thrown around by these people?

My issue with it is that it's not about all how you raise a dog. While socialization and training can be very important, the genetics behind a dog are just as important. And pretty much make or break when you get to the extremes of the reaction spectrum - paralyzing fear and aggression.

Hence why some dogs can bounce back so quickly from awful situations, where they may have been raised in a terrible situation with little socialization and no training, but put another dog in the same situation and it falls apart and can never come back.

Now we have people that think every dog can be rehabilitated, every dog can be the "perfect" dog with the right amount of training, when in fact they can't. The rescue people really play on this and I grew up thinking it and it's just not true if you really look into it. It does a real disservice to all dogs. It promotes the extremist rescuers/anti-breeders thoughts, all breeders MUST stop breeding because you can adopt any dog from a shelter and get it to do the job you want. I believe if you want a pet then you should go to a shelter or another venue, but I'm not going to rabidly attack your arm if you choose to go to a breeder. Shelters do a pretty good job of weeding out the driven dogs people think they want and give them the couch potato, dead heads they actually want, but that doesn't work for every one.

Personally my dream is to do Schutzhund with a working Am. pit bull terrier. I know exactly what I'm looking for and I know exactly who I'm going to get one from. I have been told on multiple occasions to go a shelter and get a dog to do Schutzhund, not a breeder. There are way to many variables for that, even if I were to get a puppy. Drives, shyness, confidence, aggression... it really does come down to genetics. You can shape, modify, bring out, and suppress a lot of traits in a dog that are genetic but you should NOT breed a dog that ever exhibits an unwanted trait because they have the chance of passing that trait along, in a less or greater degrees. Temperament should be looked at just as structure should be looked at.

The "it's all how you raise them" folks are doing themselves a real disservice. They may be trying to promote adoption but this idea gives the general public a false sense of security, they believe that they CAN go into just somebodies backyard, pick out a cute little pup, and they can raise it to be the perfect, happy-go-lucky, outgoing dog they always wanted. All with the parents needing to be contained somewhere else on the property lest they get mauled as they're panicking and snarling and slamming into whatever is preventing them from getting to their targets, be it chain or kennel. Or perhaps hiding under the couch, tail tucked, head low, eyes wide, lips pulled back in a stressed out submissive pant. And the so-called breeders will tell them they can to push their product, and they'll keep believing it cause that's what everyone keeps telling them! The customer is in for a big surprise as that pup matures. When you have a dog grow up "crooked" all you can do is manage the situation. Not saying they can't be managed, depending on the degree, but having a dog with extreme neurotic tendencies that aren't fixable is incredible stressful and incredibly difficult. You're on your toes constantly to prevent a situation, such as an attack and not a lot of people can handle that, or even read a dog well enough to prepare for a situation like that.

Here's a really good article that dips into temperament and drives with working German shepherds: http://www.germanshepherdguide.com/temperament.html

I know it's working dogs, not pets, but it's still a helpful article for anybody interested

It also insinuates that an older dog with issues cannot be fixed, because they were simply "raised wrong."

^I actually just heard that one recently and I was a little shocked, but somebody made a comment about how Snoopy will always be "mean" because he wasn't raised right while I was at a vaccine clinic.

Ok, excellent response, thanks. I too take exception to that reasoning when it is drawn out to the point of ignoring or refusing breed purpose and function.

It's what we've at times discussed on here as the ethics of owning pure bred (working, sporting, herding) dogs as just pets. It gets very, very sticky and complicated when this discussion is had.

Thanks for your follow up.

I hope it didn't sound rude, I'm very passionate about this topic and I tried to keep it very straight to the point and I realize I can sometimes come off really mean like that  

Everyone has their own idea of what's right and as long as it's not hurting anyone or any dog, but also has a purpose, a legitimate purpose, as a whole, breed how you may.

My favorite breeder turn out pet quality dogs, that's inevitable. You will only get 1 or 2 exceptional pups for what, every 50 pups? It's statistics.

"I hope it didn't sound rude.....I can sometimes come off really mean". Ha, there should be an emoticon for "preaching to the choir."

You sounded neither. But you did sound intelligent and coherent and to the point

I am quite passionate about the topic of breed purpose and function too and I think this ties into the OP very strongly. The problem though is when you draw these arguments out you get to a point of having to draw some hard lines in the sand. So if we are talking about the ethics of Husky ownership in light of their history, purpose, body structure, function, and their needs, you get to a point of saying "you" are right and "you" are wrong. But many folks in the "wrong" category are perfectly good people with perfectly happy dogs, and so you complicate the whole issue with all of the various exceptions and extremes, blurring the original boundaries all together.

I've often wondered: if there existed only 10 Huskies, how many would spend any time in harness at all? You can see how this would get very ugly in a conversation about the ethics of owning a Husky as a pet.

While that is their original purpose, that wouldn't necessarily need to be the only thing they had the option to do in order to be fulfilled, if that's how you're talking about ethics? Breeds evolve with need, but I wonder, at what point is it "a wolf in sheep's clothing," so to speak? I believe a breed that was bred to be active should remain active, so if you want a mellower dog, don't breed to produce mellower versions of the breed, but pick a different breed and admire the other from a distance. There are hundreds!

But breeding for mellower dogs wouldn't be the cause for huskies to be put on the dangerous dog list obviously, I do think that the misunderstanding between behavior and genetics is partially to blame for this. If we could "educate" most people to believe that it's "all how you raise them" in a few generations, how long will it take to remove this myth and start repairing the damage? This would bring SOME improvement at least.

Agreed, and well said.

I wouldn't make the definitive statement "a Husky today needs to pull something in harness." But, to ignore this history and the structure of their body because of this is wrong, as you've suggested.

I would say "a Husky needs substantial physical release of energy" (and subsequently most people should not own one).