Does something need to be done about dogs?
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
A guy who was attacked by a dog yesterday day has now died.
Stonnall, I used to live ~5 minutes from there.
As a dog owner i agree with this, me and my dog have often been ran at by unleashed bigger dogs when out on walks, shakes you up.
Superb. Hopefully they don't screw it up.
That's partly due to people not disciplining their dogs and allowing them to jump up on people from puppy stages.... Too many people treating their dogs like children rather than dogs. "furbabies".... Gimme a break, its a DOG.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,491
Circumstance, mainly.
There was a consultation in 2013, to get the sentencing increased from 2 years:
"In responding to the debate on the amendment, the Government signalled that it considers life imprisonment for allowing an aggravated dog attack to be a severe sanction. In the circumstances it would appear disproportionate to the offence. As a comparison, the maximum sentence for causing death by careless driving is 5 years, and for causing death by dangerous driving, 14 years.
Furthermore, when considering any change in the maximum penalty for an aggravated dog attack, it should be noted that a person convicted of causing death by using a dog as a weapon may be convicted of manslaughter or murder and may already be given a sentence of life imprisonment.
However, the point was made in the Parliamentary debate on the amendment that the current level of maximum penalty for an aggravated dog attack of 2 years imprisonment is too low, given the devastating effect that dog attacks can have on peoples’ lives and on assistance dogs. Overall, there is a range of possible maximum sentences between 2 years imprisonment and life that might apply in different circumstances".
I guess that's what the taskforce will need to figure out, as per the previous discussion - the BullyXL was previously banned up to around 2010. The reason they're not now, is that the law is now interpreted differently.
In a nutshell, the dangerous dogs act says "Pitbull terrier" previously, a judge could rule that if a dog was deemed to be of "pitbull-type, or pitbull subtype" it would fall under the category of "Pitbull terrier". In 2010 somebody successfully argued that a mongrel based on a Pitbull, isn't a 100% Pitbull terrier, and so isn't covered by that legislation and so isn't an illegal breed.
I still think we need licensing and mandatory insurance, but above all - we need enforcement and consequences for people who don't obey the rules. If I drive around in my car without insurance or a license, the penalties are harsh and I could end up getting my car crushed, which makes sense.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2022
- Posts
- 79
- Location
- Upt Norf
The problem with that is you are potentially only stepping in after the owners dog has taken a big chunk out of somebody, or worse. Whatsmore the irresponsible dog owner type might not follow the news to be aware of any such consequences or even care.
The best option has to be removing the breed altogether which I am pleased to hear is finally being done.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,491
Depends on the variant. Plenty of what might be considered a variant are fine as pets, ie the purebred Staffy, while Staffy crosses and other such dogs have quite the bad reputation.
It's the inclusion of Pit Bull Terrier bloodlines you want to eliminate, along with any other that the breeders would try to implement.
Consequences mean ****. Millions of people still drive without insurance, tax, MoT and even licences.
Absolutely this. What use is prosecuting an owner after a child has been killed or maimed.
It's just a shame the law won't be in place for 3 - 4 months.
Yeah - I agree, I was actually saying that as well as the ban on the BullyXL - we need to encourage owners to take more responsibility, I think one way of doing that would be with licensing and insurance, along with better enforcement. It won't be 100% effective, but if we can get it to 70-80% effective, I think you could argue it would save lives and would be a big benefit.
But you understand, without consequences - it doesn't take a high IQ to conclude that the number of uninsured drivers would be much higher, if there were no repercussions.
These things seem to be scaled up from the dog fighting Pitt bulls to man fighting sized Pitt bulls. That is probably the point we should tackle and be within the spirit of a ban.
Staffordshire bull terrier’s don’t seem to have those traits and are much easier for a typical person to handle because they’re a third of the size.
I would consider banning various cross breads that would lead to similar types of dogs. Bull terrier x Mastiff, Cane Corso etc.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,739
- Location
- Welling, London
They won’t even be considering a ban on pedigree staffs