Attacks On Guide Dogs

I wouldnt lose sleep if they banned staffies, cant stand them. Yes of course some are ok but the majority are owned by mentally challenged estate scum who use them as legal weapons.

I dont see the problem with having all dogs chipped as a legal requirement, it costs what £20 to get done? cant afford £20 then dont have a dog!
 
My fiance has a staffie cross that lives with her mum (Its her dog, but shes from up north, so left the dog up there to come work down here). Its the most pathetically soft thing you'll ever see, although it barks like mad whenever someone approaches the house.

Anyway, imo, breed is not the issue, its the owner that is the problem (Nature vs nurture, can or worms, etc). A properly trained dog will never attack a person.
 
Resident said:
A guy not far from my house has no less than 7 and his back 'garden' is about 10ft square, he never walks them either yet there have been numerous RSPCA visits to the house and nothing gets done.
Click to expand...

Common trend here.

There is a guy who lives over from me on an estate who I overlook from my flat. He doesn't work, but he has two German Shepherds and loads of smaller dogs... I assume he probably breeds them for a bit of cash in hand, as there were loads of puppies yapping last year.

He doesn't have a garden, just a tiny L-shaped bit of pavement which is only about a person and a half wide. He always makes the dogs go back in when they do go outside and he never, ever, takes them for walks. It's disgraceful and there must be thousands of people in the country like him. Not to mention I believe the council rules only allow a single dog in council homes.
 
Linkex said:
Anyway, imo, breed is not the issue, its the owner that is the problem (Nature vs nurture, can or worms, etc). A properly trained dog will never attack a person.
Click to expand...

Not really true, even a probably trained dog can attack someone if provoked, if not feeling well or for a myriad of other reasons. The problem with certain breeds is if they do attack due to bite strength the damage can be horrendous.
 
AtreuS said:
I dont see the problem with having all dogs chipped as a legal requirement, it costs what £20 to get done? cant afford £20 then dont have a dog!
Click to expand...

Trouble is that this is one of the methods that policy makers are currently debating. Microchipping, while a good idea is likely to be ignored by the real offenders. All the good dog owners get their dogs chipped, but they were good owners in the first place.

All the scum and people who breed dangerous dogs will continue to do so unhindered. If they go out on the street, what are Police going to do? Have hand held scanners to check if the dogs have chips? I doubt it.
 
They're being attacked by other dogs? :confused:

That's not an attack then, is it? Dogs are not doing it intentionally, it's just a coincidence they're on the rise.
 
RDM said:
Not really true, even a probably trained dog can attack someone if provoked, if not feeling well or for a myriad of other reasons. The problem with certain breeds is if they do attack due to bite strength the damage can be horrendous.
Click to expand...

100% Agree, I think dogs over a certain size/weight need to be muzzled in public.
Sadly that won't prevent a lot of the attacks where moronic family's allow big powerful dogs around small children, however it's hard to address/prevent this without infringing on sensible peoples freedoms / rights!
 
I hereby propose a new charity - Guide Tigers for the Blind. Attacks on guide dogs will by default decrease to zero, and any dog stupid enough to attack a tiger will rightly form part of the animals diet. That way we get rid of stupid chav dags and everybody is happy except the chavs (but we don't really care about them).
 
This whole thing about "it's the owner not the dog" has been done to death.

Yes, it's the fault of the owners in 99% of the cases when a dog attacks.

Certain dog breeds though can cause excessive damage when they happen to attack, considerably more than other dog breeds. Hence why people consider them dangerous.

All in all, it looks like a weapon metaphor. Guns are not a problem in themselves, only when they fall into the hands of idiots. That's part of why we don't allow guns, because they might fall into the hands of people who don't know how to use them.

Likewise with dog owners, something needs to be done to ensure that only eligible people are allowed to own dogs that can be dangerous. Perhaps chipping the dogs, then demanding the owner to take them through specific training, otherwise remove the dog from their custody? don't know really.

I don't know, something. It's so annoying seeing teenage idiots with staffies unleashed on the street.
 
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
100% Agree, I think dogs over a certain size/weight need to be muzzled in public.
Sadly that won't prevent a lot of the attacks where moronic family's allow big powerful dogs around small children, however it's hard to address/prevent this without infringing on sensible peoples freedoms / rights!
Click to expand...

A small dog could do severe/fatal damage so I think if you're saying only big dogs should be muzzled then you need to re-think that.
 
Chris-.- said:
A small dog could do severe/fatal damage so I think if you're saying only big dogs should be muzzled then you need to re-think that.
Click to expand...

Post me some evidence where a small non powerful dog has killed or even seriously maimed someone and i'll stand corrected!
A simple read of the link posted in this thread clearly shows that it's large and/or powerful dogs that are killing and maiming children/people.
Of course little snappy yappy dogs can bite and be aggressive but the damage they can inflict and the inability to stop an attack is seriously limited compared to a 10 stone powerful dog, simple logic!!
 
Last edited:
CRAZY: Proof see link below, baby girl killed by Pomeranian dog, also Chihuahua involved in another incident.

http://www.lawyerfordogbite.com/dangerous-dogs/dangerous-dogs-the-family-pet.html

And here below a Dachshund, & Yorkshire Terrier were involved in fatal attacks.

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf


Also interesting reading.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/10150239/Breeds-of-dogs-involved-in-fatal-human-attacks

There was a book 'Fatal Dog Attacks' by Karen Delise , it has statistics backed by 37 years of studies, well worth reading, it's still available on Amazon second hand.

One extract from the book; Here is a list breeds that have caused at least one fatality within the past two decades:

Akita; Australian Shepherd; Boxer; Bulldog; Bullmastiff; Chesapeake Bay Retriever; Chow Chow; Cocker Spaniel; Collie; Coonhound; Dachshund, Doberman; Golden Retriever; Great Dane; Hound-"type" (may include crossbreeds); Husky; Japanese Hunting Dog; Labrador Retriever; Lhasa Apso, Malamute; Mastiff; Mixed-breed (where dog was known to be a mixed-breed, does not include dogs whose breed was not known); Newfoundland; Pit bull "type" (may include crosses or misidentified individuals); Pomeranian, Rhodesian Ridgeback; Rottweiler; German Shepherd Dog; Saint Bernard; Sheepdog; Sled-"type" (may include crossbreeds); Terrier-"type" (may include crossbreeds); West Highland White Terrier; Wolf/Dog hybrid, Yorkshire Terrier.
 
Last edited:
AtreuS said:
I wouldnt lose sleep if they banned staffies
Click to expand...

This

Just ban the breeding and import of such dogs, neuter the rest and wait until the current ones die off in ten years.

Make an exception for the Police and Army.


It won't stop whole schools being mauled to death by scary Chihuahu's, but at least it'll end all the current problems.

Staffies are fugly creatures anyway, I've seen better looking munters on Jeremy Kyle
 
edscdk said:
after extensive research of 30 seconds

top 10 aggressive breeds

1 Dachshunds
2 Chihuahua
3 Jack Russell
4 Australian Cattle Dog
5 Cocker Spaniel
6 Beagle
7 Border Collie
8 Pit Bull Terrier
9 Great Dane
10 English Springer Spaniel

least aggressive

Labrador Retriever
Rhodesian Ridgeback
Poodle
Greyhound
Whippet
Brittany Spaniel
Siberian Husky
Golden Retriever
Havanese
Portuguese water dog
Click to expand...

the thing is aggressive isnt the same as dangerous. a Chihuahua can be aggressive but its not going to do much damage.

ive had 2 Dachshunds. 1 regular the other was a small. the big one was as soft as ****, the 2nd was a tenacious little sod and bit me in the lip (went right through and left a nice hole and scar lol).

at the end of the day Dachshunds arent really a pet either as they are for hunting rabbits and badgers (Dachs means badger in german IIRC). working or hunting dogs are bred to be tenacious as they have a job to do. jack Russell's are also not always great for pets as they seem to have a chip on their shoulder... little man syndrome :) plus they are often used for rat catching as they often go for anything small and furry.

Beagle aggressive? odd as i thought they were supposed to be very placid and thats why they were picked for animal research.

oddly i googled too and i get a different list... define aggressive.... it might just mean barking and snarling or ripping off a face.

at the end of the day any breed can be trained to be aggressive or placid. a lot of this is down to the owners to be honest.
 
Nexus said:
Common trend here.

There is a guy who lives over from me on an estate who I overlook from my flat. He doesn't work, but he has two German Shepherds and loads of smaller dogs... I assume he probably breeds them for a bit of cash in hand, as there were loads of puppies yapping last year.

He doesn't have a garden, just a tiny L-shaped bit of pavement which is only about a person and a half wide. He always makes the dogs go back in when they do go outside and he never, ever, takes them for walks. It's disgraceful and there must be thousands of people in the country like him. Not to mention I believe the council rules only allow a single dog in council homes.
Click to expand...

why dont you report him to the RSPCA?
 
Nightglow said:
CRAZY: Proof see link below, baby girl killed by Pomeranian dog, also Chihuahua involved in another incident.

http://www.lawyerfordogbite.com/dangerous-dogs/dangerous-dogs-the-family-pet.html

And here below a Dachshund, & Yorkshire Terrier were involved in fatal attacks.

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf


Also interesting reading.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/10150239/Breeds-of-dogs-involved-in-fatal-human-attacks

There was a book 'Fatal Dog Attacks' by Karen Delise , it has statistics backed by 37 years of studies, well worth reading, it's still available on Amazon second hand.

One extract from the book; Here is a list breeds that have caused at least one fatality within the past two decades:

Akita; Australian Shepherd; Boxer; Bulldog; Bullmastiff; Chesapeake Bay Retriever; Chow Chow; Cocker Spaniel; Collie; Coonhound; Dachshund, Doberman; Golden Retriever; Great Dane; Hound-"type" (may include crossbreeds); Husky; Japanese Hunting Dog; Labrador Retriever; Lhasa Apso, Malamute; Mastiff; Mixed-breed (where dog was known to be a mixed-breed, does not include dogs whose breed was not known); Newfoundland; Pit bull "type" (may include crosses or misidentified individuals); Pomeranian, Rhodesian Ridgeback; Rottweiler; German Shepherd Dog; Saint Bernard; Sheepdog; Sled-"type" (may include crossbreeds); Terrier-"type" (may include crossbreeds); West Highland White Terrier; Wolf/Dog hybrid, Yorkshire Terrier.
Click to expand...

Well I think it's safe to say that fatalities or serious injuries caused by small dogs is EXTREMELY low and rare! It's simple logic and common sense that the bigger and more powerful the dog the more serious the damage it can cause!
The link and multiple case's within proves this point:
http://www.ukandspain.com/dangerous-dogs/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom