Does something need to be done about dogs?

[Dis86]

It's pretty serious for the five people who get bitten every day. To me, one attack is too many.

Having said that, this figure, I think, is postmen. And certainly I would make the simple rule of "keep your dog in, or you don't get mail".

Keep in mind that's just 5 from one profession every day.
There are about 90k posties in the uk so that's approximately 2% recording dog attacks every year.

 

[Dis86]

So you think a cocker spaniel or what looks like a sheepdog kept by a what is probably a responsible owner is likely to "rip a kids arms and legs off". oh wait u have a have a maths degree so must be true then. better kill my 8kg 12 inch high patterdale terrier before it commits mass murder.

What is it with dog owners and the inability to read? Seems to be some weird quirk many develop.

 

[Dis86]

Who said there's nothing to see here and everything is fine (apart from you)? It's made national news, of course people have taken notice.
Dog attacks on postal workers is an issue. I think any dog owner who allows their dog to do this should be heavily punished.
It's the owners who could prevent it and if there were real penalties i'm sure it could help prevent it.
I bet a fair proportion of attacks are by the naturally aggressive breeds with d1ckhead owners, who should be banned from owning a dog in the 1st place, nevermind the breed being banned.

Literally the poster before you who said it's not a problem

 

[Dis86]

Got to assume most of it is dogs biting the post/post persons fingers as they put the mail through the door.

Not dogs being out the front, mauling them.

Nobody needs fingers, right?

 

[Dis86]

Were there cases of people losing fingers? The report doesn't give much of a breakdown of what is considered an attack.

The main story they focus on in this report is obviously horrific, but a better breakdown of these statistics, rather than just where they happened on the property, would give us a better picture.

I.e. could a dog standing and barking "aggressively" at a postie be reported as an attack or does it have to have made some form of physical contact? What if it paws the posties hand through the letterbox and causes a light scratch?

https://www.royalmail.com/personal/dog-awareness

Later on it gives more details. Seems @VincentHanna only a minority of these were bites through letterboxes

 

[Dis86]

Woman, 68, suffers potentially life-changing injuries after dog attack

Three people have been injured after a dog attack in Worcester.

www.upday.com

Wouldn't hurt a fly. Great with kids.

 

[Dis86]

we get it, you hate dogs.

Unsure what this news story brings as its nothing new to this thread. It does not mention the breed of dog (which is what this thread runs on), person got attacked, other person in the dwelling has killed the dog, world moves on.

I don't hate dogs. I hate needless harm to people.

 

[Dis86]

Well that's debatable, but not what we are here to discuss.

Thanks for not answering the second part of my post.

That's because the second part of your post was an oxymoron. How can news not be new? It's in the name. I'm perfectly welcome within my own thread to record further instances of harm to people by violent and dangerous dogs.

 

[Dis86]

So you are linking for the sake of linking even though it provides nothing to the discussion or thread itself.
Noted thanks for the waste of time.

Also, the second part was clearly a question asking as to why you would link it, as funny enough its brings nothing to this discussion.

As opposed to your riveting posts? It continues to highlight nothing is changing and we still have a significant problem. Come on, put that brain to use man!

 

[Dis86]

Lol, get more defensive.
Sorry I seem to invoke so much anger in yourself.

It continues to highlight- checks notes - that a very small percentage of dogs can be dangerous.

Without wishing to repeat everything in here, but there's a ton of context missing from the news piece and as to why this dog is violent/has become violent.
Stating, oh here's another one is just pointless. I could make the same argument and justifications against groups of individuals.
Is it all of those individuals within that group causing the issues and as a result, all of them should suffer. Here's a hint, the answer is No.

More smooth brain posting. You've challenged my post so of course I'm going to defend it. Again, use your brain man! Come on!

Stating there's another one isn't pointless, it highlights a continuing unactioned problem that some individuals are in complete denial of. Like the person who challenged the number of attacks then ran off like a whipped pup when they were given the government's own statistics. Weirdly they've not been back in the thread...or yourself for example with your weird rambling anecdote above.

 

[Dis86]

Horses? Cows? Pigs? Snakes?

How many of those things do you regularly see mooching around the streets or in people's homes? How many children are killed by them each year?

As already explained, things like cows and pigs serve a purpose (nom nom nom). Although i'm not averse to serving up a bit of Honey the Pomeranian or Dexter the Collie...

 

[Dis86]

Seven-year-old girl treated in hospital after dog attack in Merseyside

upday.com

f7td5.app.goo.gl

Kids not even safe in parks from random dog attack these days. Lacerations to the head, sure it was just a playful little nip eh?

 

[Dis86]

@dowie Not possible. Its a non-issue according to those in complete denial in here.

 

[Dis86]

No one is getting rid of dogs.

If Labour said "dogs are banned" tories would win the election

If someone said "we're going to sacrifice a couple of dozen kids every year so you can have ice-cream" people would sharp give up ice-cream!

 

[Dis86]

Like **** we would.

Is ice cream made out of kids? You best not be using ginger ones

They're the most flavoursome.

 

[Dis86]

I doubt it.


People die from peanut allergies all the time but it isn't banned.

You seriously don't get the difference between a medical condition and being killed? Are you...OK?

 

[Dis86]

What's the difference? A few people die from dog attacks. A few people die from peanut allergies. Both could technically easily be prevented. But we don't. Because otherwise we'd ban everything.

One is a result of a medical condition that cannot be prevented. The other isn't.

 

[Dis86]

But banning peanuts from all foods would save people. So why not do it?

Because peanuts serve a very good purpose. They're one of the best forms of nutrition around and you can pretty much survive off them alone.

A peanut will not chase someone down and attack them. Peanuts can generally be avoided by those with sensitivities and if not a simple medical device can generally negate the harm.

Additionally it's worth noting that legislation is already in place that requires foods containing any trace of peanuts to be labelled.

 

[Dis86]

Should need a licence to fondle a bag of nuts.

You can fondle mine any time you want.

 

[Dis86]

I sympathise with not only dog owners but also people that don’t own them.

Myself and my partner adopted a dog earlier this year, a 2 year old Staffordshire Bull Terrier crossed with a Bullmastiff. A large dog, understandably quite intimidating.

Since we got him, around 4 months ago, he has been socialised with other dogs of various breeds, various people from children to elderly, attended obedience/rescue training. Until last week, he was a lovable dog, never in doubt his actions and wouldn’t worry about his temperament etc.

Then, for no reason we can fathom he has attacked us, on 3 occasions within the last 10 days. One resulting in hospitalisation. I suppose, certain breeds are always a threat, danger or unpredictable especially when rehomed.

Sad really.

Wait...you mean a dog completely against its previous behaviour and traits, that seemed to be a good, well trained dog suddenly attacked you? Nope. Not possible. That just never happens ever.