Does something need to be done about dogs?

[potatolord]

I wonder whether the BullyXL is such a totally grotesque abomination of a creature it attracts a certain type of owner who probably wouldn't want any other dog. It's been bred purely to frighten people and be used as a status dog.

That's my guess based on the owners I see locally. They are heavily weighted to skinny trackie lads.

In the UK we have some of the highest driving standards in the world (top 10), passing your test is REALLY ******* hard, and the standards for vehicle safety are very high indeed, second I believe only to Sweden and possibly Germany.

As a result, UK roads are some of the safest in the world with close to the lowest number of fatalities, per 100k miles driven.

I had to do some stats on that a few years back.

Uk is good (as other rich European countries) partly as we have more modern cars with better safety features.

I remember Italy being the bad outlier there- which will come as no surprise to anyone who has been on the road in Italy!

 

[Felon]

Another interesting thing,

In the next 2-3 years I'm planning to get a Bullmastiff - when I get the right house and my life in order, looking at insurance quotes - I can get one insured from pretty much everywhere, and it's around £50-80 a month, for a full lifetime plan, give or take.

I tried as an experiment to get some quotes for a BullyXL and nobody will even get me a quote lol, they literally all say "NOPE!".

It tells it's own story really, if you can't even get an insurance quote for the damn thing - not even for £crazy money, it tells it's own story really - the insurance company is really making the decision of risk based on the breed, because that's the fact of the matter.

 

[Richie]

How do you see top posters in a thread?

That could be a useful tool.

Unlike some of the tools who post in *select thread name*

top right of page, 3 dots with arrow down, Whos replied

If you dont want to enter the thread itself then, from the Threads page view (the page where you then click the thread to view it), click on the number beside "Replies" to pop up the posters and counts (On this thread is says "3K". Click on this and it will pop up a window)

 

[Mason-]

If all non-working dogs didn't exist. i.e. nobody had a dog as a pet. How much carbon footprint would be saved? All the food production, transport, toys made from hydrocarbons etc etc.

How much does having a pet dog increase your carbon footprint? I wonder how big the intersection of dog owners and eco-warriors is. Having a dog is a pet (I don't consider working dogs pets) is for the majority a luxury.

Did some googling, from here I found this stat quite remarkable https://www.zerosmart.co.uk/post/the-average-carbon-footprint-of-a-pet

Does a dog have a bigger carbon footprint than a car?​

A dog can have a considerably higher carbon footprint than a car, especially if it has a very beef-intensive diet. A large dog’s carbon footprint could be up to 2x that of a family car's average annual usage.

Wow. Maybe that is the angle to go at really. If people are more reluctant to have dogs due to concern about the environment then less people will have dogs. Less dogs = less attacks.

Sorry if it's already been discussed before. But this seems like a more palatable way to reduce the number of dogs people have. The consensus for dog attacks seems to be that the owner is more responsible for dog behaviour than the breed, whether or not you agree that seems to be the widely accepted opinion. And when you start criticising owners, they usually ignore you and get defensive, the same way if you criticise the way a parent raises their child. If this angle were pushed more, people would have less dogs anyway and would hopefully reduce the amount of attacks.

 

[Richie]

If all non-working dogs didn't exist. i.e. nobody had a dog as a pet. How much carbon footprint would be saved? All the food production, transport, toys made from hydrocarbons etc etc.

How much does having a pet dog increase your carbon footprint? I wonder how big the intersection of dog owners and eco-warriors is. Having a dog is a pet (I don't consider working dogs pets) is for the majority a luxury.

Did some googling, from here I found this stat quite remarkable https://www.zerosmart.co.uk/post/the-average-carbon-footprint-of-a-pet




Wow. Maybe that is the angle to go at really. If people are more reluctant to have dogs due to concern about the environment then less people will have dogs. Less dogs = less attacks.

Sorry if it's already been discussed before. But this seems like a more palatable way to reduce the number of dogs people have. The consensus for dog attacks seems to be that the owner is more responsible for dog behaviour than the breed, whether or not you agree that seems to be the widely accepted opinion. And when you start criticising owners, they usually ignore you and get defensive, the same way if you criticise the way a parent raises their child. If this angle were pushed more, people would have less dogs anyway and would hopefully reduce the amount of attacks.

What's the carbon footprint of a child? Perhaps that's an angle to go at as well?

 

[Mason-]

What's the carbon footprint of a child? Perhaps that's an angle to go at as well?

You can argue that’s already happening. I think westerners are having less children and I think that’s partly due to awareness of the environment/climate change. Not wholly of course but it’s a factor.

I don’t think people consider it when getting a dog though.

If people are considering the environment when deciding whether or not to purchase a car, and according to that article a dog produces twice the amount of CO2 as a car annually, maybe they should consider it when they get a dog too. They are a luxury, more so then a car for most people.

 

[413x]

What's the carbon footprint of a child? Perhaps that's an angle to go at as well?

Don't get me started!

 

[413x]

If all non-working dogs didn't exist. i.e. nobody had a dog as a pet. How much carbon footprint would be saved? All the food production, transport, toys made from hydrocarbons etc etc.

How much does having a pet dog increase your carbon footprint? I wonder how big the intersection of dog owners and eco-warriors is. Having a dog is a pet (I don't consider working dogs pets) is for the majority a luxury.

Did some googling, from here I found this stat quite remarkable https://www.zerosmart.co.uk/post/the-average-carbon-footprint-of-a-pet




Wow. Maybe that is the angle to go at really. If people are more reluctant to have dogs due to concern about the environment then less people will have dogs. Less dogs = less attacks.

Sorry if it's already been discussed before. But this seems like a more palatable way to reduce the number of dogs people have. The consensus for dog attacks seems to be that the owner is more responsible for dog behaviour than the breed, whether or not you agree that seems to be the widely accepted opinion. And when you start criticising owners, they usually ignore you and get defensive, the same way if you criticise the way a parent raises their child. If this angle were pushed more, people would have less dogs anyway and would hopefully reduce the amount of attacks.

Dogs are like kids in this regard.
If someone wants a kid they will. A lot of eco people will throw the eco stuff out the window and for such things.

If 1 person didn't have a kid, but did drive a petrol car, didn't recycle, went on typical holidays, their footprint would be much lower than an eco person with a kid (assuming the kid has an average carbon using existence)

But often this goes out the window. Same with dogs. If people want them. They will have them. Money is likely going to be the bigger driver than morals on this.

 

[Mason-]

Dogs are like kids in this regard.

I’d argue they’re treated like kids in all regards. People anthropomorphise them, dress them up, give them names, kiss them etc.

And that’s why any restriction on dogs would be viewed widely by the public the same way restrictions on having children would be.

In answer to the title of this thread:
Does something need to be done? Yes.
Will it? Not by direction action, no.

Instead it will only work subliminally the same way that human birth rates in the west are. Through anxiety due to climate change and with the capitalist’s greatest ruse that ‘emancipation’ and freedom is spending your life being an insignificant cog in a huge corporate machine. Although I don’t think they’ll be able to convince female dogs of the latter point. They might be able to emphasise the former to potential dog owners.

 

[dowie]

In the next 2-3 years I'm planning to get a Bullmastiff - when I get the right house and my life in order, looking at insurance quotes - I can get one insured from pretty much everywhere, and it's around £50-80 a month, for a full lifetime plan, give or take.

I tried as an experiment to get some quotes for a BullyXL and nobody will even get me a quote lol, they literally all say "NOPE!".

It tells it's own story really, if you can't even get an insurance quote for the damn thing - not even for £crazy money, it tells it's own story really - the insurance company is really making the decision of risk based on the breed, because that's the fact of the matter.

Yup, pointed this out earlier... the people with the data who actually deal with risk for a living know full well that there are clear differences between dog breeds. Especially funny when the RSPCA comes out publicly against breed legislation but even their own insurance company won't insure fighting dogs:

This is hilarious, the woke but innumerate charity workers at the RSPCA (who totally don't have a vested interest here re: pitbull types in their shelters) are fine with advocating in favour of ownership of Bully XLs... unless it's for insurance purpose, sadly then the grown-ups who have studied statistics and appreciate risk have decided that it's not worth insuring them.

Funny contradiction but it does show up their stance to be totally full of *** #SkinInTheGame

https://twitter.com/x/status/1693364555953443184

 

[413x]

I’d argue they’re like kids in all regards. People anthropomorphise them, dress them up, give them names, kiss them etc.

And that’s why any restriction on dogs would be viewed widely by the public the same way restrictions on having children would be.

In answer to the title of this thread:
Does something need to be done? Yes.
Will it? Not by direction action, no.

Instead it will only work subliminally the same way that human birth rates in the west are. Through anxiety due to climate change and with the capitalists biggest ‘ruse’ that ‘emancipation’ and freedom is spending your life being an insignificant cog in a huge corporate machine.

It will only change naturally.
Having pets would be in our constitution if we had one.

Much like renewables, kids etc.. These aspects are only going to change organically.

As renewables compete in price with fossil fuels they'll grow and grow.
As kids become too expensive birth rates will crater.

Once enough people are then on board with change, that's when you can change the rules (laws)

Pets may well (not sure on stats) be more popular as people can no longer afford kids, so switch to pets.

 

[Mason-]

It will only change naturally.
Having pets would be in our constitution if we had one.

Much like renewables, kids etc.. These aspects are only going to change organically.

As renewables compete in price with fossil fuels they'll grow and grow.
As kids become too expensive birth rates will crater.

Once enough people are then on board with change, that's when you can change the rules (laws)

Pets may well (not sure on stats) be more popular as people can no longer afford kids, so switch to pets.

What an utterly depressing thought. Peoples inate desire to care and raise young, pacified by a canine substitute. Rather like porn to young men as a substitute for sex I suppose.

Sounds like a recipe for mental health issues. Such a brave new world this is.

 

[413x]

What an utterly depressing thought. Peoples inate desire to care and raise young, pacified by a canine substitute. Rather like porn to young men I suppose.

Sounds like a recipe for mental health issues. Such a brave new world this is.

I don't think it's that bad.
I don't think there's anything wrong with raising a pet rather than a kid.

We have a dog and no kids. I treat my boy well, I'll talk to him, obviously I know he's not a child. But dogs are intelligent.
I don't put clothes on him and weird stuff like that.

I don't really think it's sad if you get a dog vs a kid because of cost pressures and treat the dog as a dog.

I mean it's sad people who want kids can't afford it.. But that's slightly different.

 

[Parsley]

Rottweiler attacks are too rare to consider banning the breed.

Rotties don't attract the same crowd that they used to. I've also never met a nasty one, they've all been universally very gentle, very silly, or both. And they get very lazy quite early on in life!

On another note, I've met a few very badly behaved dogs but the only ones that ever had me worried were a Bully XL and an American Bulldog, both being "walked" by morons. The dog was walking them (both times), and one very nearly got a hold of my Jack Russell Cross as it was dragging around a woman who can't have been more than 40kg, she was tiny. The Bully XL would have if it wasn't muzzled and I had to drag it off him only to have an altercation with the waste of oxygen "walking" it. Next time I saw him he threatened to let his dog kill mine. Those interactions changed my dogs behaviour and he hasn't been the same with overly interested big dogs since, he sees them as a threat.

It wasn't the dogs fault their owners are like that, but giving them access to those sorts of dogs is sort of asking for problems.

For dogs that are so powerful a fully grown man can struggle / fail to restrain it, I do think they should be banned. No one needs a dog like that, you don't need to defend your farm from bloody bears.

 

[Parsley]

And for what it's worth, I don't think the massive majority of dogs should be banned, but I would be happy to pay for licensing, compulsory training or courses, and greater levels of insurance for any current or future dogs I own. But I'm fortunate to be in a position where I can afford these things.

 

[413x]

And for what it's worth, I don't think the massive majority of dogs should be banned, but I would be happy to pay for licensing, compulsory training or courses, and greater levels of insurance for any current or future dogs I own. But I'm fortunate to be in a position where I can afford these things.

Problem is.. You'd need to enforce it. The types that have these aggressive looking strong dogs are not the sort to get licences. But they are exactly the sort you want to weed out

As others have said, these dogs are uninsurable.

That's already into the "irresponsible" realm for me.

 

[Parsley]

Problem is.. You'd need to enforce it. The types that have these aggressive looking strong dogs are not the sort to get licences. But they are exactly the sort you want to weed out

As others have said, these dogs are uninsurable.

That's already into the "irresponsible" realm for me.

Yeah, I understand that. But I won't pretend I'm clever enough to know how to enforce the rules when the problem is entirely irresponsible, selfish and ignorant people who don't give two damns about much of anything other than what they want, other people be damned. Heck, it's a good thing that they're causing problems for other people, stick it to the man!

I do believe there are people who can own these dogs responsibly but upsetting that handful of people would be worth it to remove the biggest part of the problem. You can't make life so sanitary that there is no danger, but you can do a lot to remove a chunk of the risk with a few steps.

But yeah... actually enforcing it? With the current state of things and people in general, I wouldn't know how.

 

[413x]

Yeah, I understand that. But I won't pretend I'm clever enough to know how to enforce the rules when the problem is entirely irresponsible, selfish and ignorant people who don't give two damns about much of anything other than what they want, other people be damned. Heck, it's a good thing that they're causing problems for other people, stick it to the man!

I do believe there are people who can own these dogs responsibly but upsetting that handful of people would be worth it to remove the biggest part of the problem. You can't make life so sanitary that there is no danger, but you can do a lot to remove a lot of the risk with a few steps.

But yeah... actually enforcing it? With the current state of things and people in general, I wouldn't know how.

This is one of the rare cases I agree with a ban on that breed. I understand its a slippery slope.

Maybe there should be a ban review if x number of serious accidents a year is breached.
Ie.. Right now.. Bully xl are over this line.. So a review into thier banning should be enforced.
No idea how to police it either. And I certainly wouldn't want to take dogs away from thier owners. That would be horrible.

 

[Felon]

Problem is.. You'd need to enforce it.

Yeah for me, the enforcement is always going to be the hardest part, we live in a situation where if robbers break into your property, turn your house over and steal £5k worth of valuables - the police may or may not show up 6 weeks afterwards...

With that in mind, having boots on the ground to be able to check that dogs are licensed and insured - it's just not going to happen at the moment..

I always wondered whether for people who own larger dogs, say anything over 45KG (100Lb) there needs to be a mandatory dog safety and behaviour course which you MUST pay for and attend, a bit like a speed awareness course - where it's about common sense and behaviour, what to do if your dog acts up, how to recognise problem situations and how to resolve them.

 

[Parsley]

This is one of the rare cases I agree with a ban on that breed. I understand its a slippery slope.

Maybe there should be a ban review if x number of serious accidents a year is breached.
Ie.. Right now.. Bully xl are over this line.. So a review into thier banning should be enforced.
No idea how to police it either. And I certainly wouldn't want to take dogs away from thier owners. That would be horrible.

As part of it, if it ever happened, I'd like to see problem dogs taken from their owners and homed until they die from natural causes by people who aren't irresponsible. The same goes for dogs that have problem owners, take the dogs off them. But that would take funding that would never be given. Responsible owners should keep their dogs under license but have them neutered.