Does something need to be done about dogs?

Dis86 said:
Aaaand what is one of the restriction methods?
Click to expand...

This is what's funny, you're so argumentatively contrarian you react like a pavlovian dog at times without realising someone hasn't even disagreed with you about the core of the discussion :cry:

All I did was answer your simple question with a factual answer and yes, I still maintain its relevant to the point. You just found the answer inconvenient for some reason so immediately went on your usual obtuse arguments. So for the record I'm completely fine with licensing for dogs....and guns ;).
 
Freakbro said:
This is what's funny, you're so argumentatively contrarian you react like a pavlovian dog at times without realising someone hasn't even disagreed with you about the core of the discussion :cry:

All I did was answer your simple question with a factual answer and yes, I still maintain its relevant to the point. You just found the answer inconvenient for some reason so immediately went on your usual obtuse arguments. So for the record I'm completely fine with licensing for dogs....and guns ;).
Click to expand...

I never said you disagreed on licenses. You clearly never did. Infact you've supported my point :confused:
 
Looking at what happened when my wife walking our dog was attacked in the street, I look at licenses and the concept of responsible ownership of certain breeds and I don't feel on their own they hugely seem to address the issues. The owner of the dog that attacked my wife, then mauled our dog was deemed 'responsible' and the police decreed that it posed no threat to the public etc.

The failure mode was:
1. Despite all safeguards, a gate/door was left open accidentally, allowing the dog to get outside the front of the property.
2. The dog did not have the intelligence to understand their property they are protecting ends at the pavement and therefore any member of the public on said pavement should not be attacked.
3. The Dog in question was of a breed that should it feel you are not in its family and within it's territory will latch on and inflict serious damage (the way it then dragged our dog down a side alley like a ragdoll was quite harrowing).

The way the police rationalised this to decree the dog posed no threat and the owner was a responsible owner just tells me this is the fundamental issue. The fact he had the correct harness and muzzle was one of the reasons cited, the obviousness that this only works if you are 100% in control of the dog 100% of the time, however, the failure mode was the dog escaping the house, at that point, no muzzle, no restraint and it did what it naturally wanted to do.

We obviously have a dog, One of the requirements was it had to be a softer breed of dog that lacks the hardware in almost all cases to inflict serious damage and are not bred in anyway for any aggressive trait.

Perhaps if the law was such that you are tried for whatever violence your dog ensued no matter what, then perhaps this would focus peoples minds..
 
Demon said:
Looking at what happened when my wife walking our dog was attacked in the street, I look at licenses and the concept of responsible ownership of certain breeds and I don't feel on their own they hugely seem to address the issues. The owner of the dog that attacked my wife, then mauled our dog was deemed 'responsible' and the police decreed that it posed no threat to the public etc.

The failure mode was:
1. Despite all safeguards, a gate/door was left open accidentally, allowing the dog to get outside the front of the property.
2. The dog did not have the intelligence to understand their property they are protecting ends at the pavement and therefore any member of the public on said pavement should not be attacked.
3. The Dog in question was of a breed that should it feel you are not in its family and within it's territory will latch on and inflict serious damage (the way it then dragged our dog down a side alley like a ragdoll was quite harrowing).

The way the police rationalised this to decree the dog posed no threat and the owner was a responsible owner just tells me this is the fundamental issue. The fact he had the correct harness and muzzle was one of the reasons cited, the obviousness that this only works if you are 100% in control of the dog 100% of the time, however, the failure mode was the dog escaping the house, at that point, no muzzle, no restraint and it did what it naturally wanted to do.

We obviously have a dog, One of the requirements was it had to be a softer breed of dog that lacks the hardware in almost all cases to inflict serious damage and are not bred in anyway for any aggressive trait.

Perhaps if the law was such that you are tried for whatever violence your dog ensued no matter what, then perhaps this would focus peoples minds..
Click to expand...

That's not possible. Responsible owners blah blah blah, no dog is inherently dangerous blah blah blah.
Hope your wife and dog weren't badly hurt.
 
Talked about this with my sister who owns a staffie, Interestingly she told me her home had to be inspected, was asked about her life, her routine etc. before she could have the dog. Is this routine across the board or just unique to where she got the dog from? Which I think was a rescue home.
 
chrcoluk said:
Talked about this with my sister who owns a staffie, Interestingly she told me her home had to be inspected, was asked about her life, her routine etc. before she could have the dog. Is this routine across the board or just unique to where she got the dog from? Which I think was a rescue home.
Click to expand...

I presume it is the rescue home being careful that the dog is going to their forever home. Dogs tend to form strong attachments, so it must be quite upsetting for them to be abandoned by an owner, so they probably dont want it to happen again
 
Some breeds of dog have a worse temperament than others but the main reason some dogs have a bad rep is that they are far more dangerous when they snap and that also attracts a certain type of owner.

If a Jack Russell wants to eat me I could easily kill it. Rottweiler, not so much.
 
Dis86 said:
No. Stats are pretty clear about which types of dog are the most dangerous. Jack Russell's in the lead followed by staffies.
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on your definition of dangerous, and the prevalence of those dogs. To be fair, if I was going to be attacked by a dog, I'd rather it was a jack Russell than a bull terrier/ rotty etc.

Can you link the stats? I'm genuinely interested in seeing a breakdown by breed.

Recent deaths are disproportionately pit/ American Bully types.
 
chrcoluk said:
Talked about this with my sister who owns a staffie, Interestingly she told me her home had to be inspected, was asked about her life, her routine etc. before she could have the dog. Is this routine across the board or just unique to where she got the dog from? Which I think was a rescue home.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's the same if you try and adopt a cat too.
 
potatolord said:
I suppose it depends on your definition of dangerous, and the prevalence of those dogs. To be fair, if I was going to be attacked by a dog, I'd rather it was a jack Russell than a bull terrier/ rotty etc.

Can you link the stats? I'm genuinely interested in seeing a breakdown by breed.

Recent deaths are disproportionately pit/ American Bully types.
Click to expand...

Seems to vary a lot tbh

https://www.countryliving.com/uk/wildlife/dog-breeds/a36336020/aggressive-dog-breeds/

Seems to vary based upon deaths, attacks, aggression etc.
 
chrcoluk said:
Talked about this with my sister who owns a staffie, Interestingly she told me her home had to be inspected, was asked about her life, her routine etc. before she could have the dog. Is this routine across the board or just unique to where she got the dog from? Which I think was a rescue home.
Click to expand...

I'd be very concerned on two fronts; firstly who would actually want a Staffordshire Bull Terrier (people should stop trying to make it sound cute with the name "staffie") and secondly if it's from a rescue home why was it in there - obviously broken in some way either by poor nurture or undesirable nature.
 
Mysterae_ said:
I'd be very concerned on two fronts; firstly who would actually want a Staffordshire Bull Terrier (people should stop trying to make it sound cute with the name "staffie") and secondly if it's from a rescue home why was it in there - obviously broken in some way either by poor nurture or undesirable nature.
Click to expand...

Dogs can end up in a rescue home for many reasons and often its nothing to do with the dog. There was an article just the other day on a rescue center saying they weren't able to cope as they had 45 admissions in one week of dogs by owners that got dogs during lockdown who can no longer afford to keep them. Many of them had medical issues that the owners couldnt afford the vets bills so gave them up.
 
Mysterae_ said:
I'd be very concerned on two fronts; firstly who would actually want a Staffordshire Bull Terrier (people should stop trying to make it sound cute with the name "staffie") and secondly if it's from a rescue home why was it in there - obviously broken in some way either by poor nurture or undesirable nature.
Click to expand...

Not obvious at all unless you have a particularly blinkered view, dogs can end up in rescue homes for many reasons, strays that either have no microchip or the chip details haven't been updated, owners moving into rental house that doesn't allow pets, owner dies and no-one to take on the dog, owner moving abroad, job loss so can no longer afford to keep the dog, illness/incapacity so no longer physically able to look after the dog.

I hate the word "staffie" so never refer to ours that way. It's not a breed I'd have ever chosen, he was my father-in-laws dog and would have ended up at a rescue centre if we hadn't taken him on (see point above :)) He's by far the most obedient and good natured dog we've ever had and I'd happily choose the same breed again. He's never once shown any aggressive traits even in situations with other dogs (one in particular when a spaniel sank it's teeth in to him, not the first time the same spaniel had bitten another dog) doesn't chase anything other than frisbees and tennis balls and has generally done a very good job of changing other peoples opinion of the breed (generally people who've no experience of the breed and get all their information 2nd/3rd hand or from the Daily Mail)
Dog ownership is very popular where I live and makes for interesting viewing, the majority are well trained dogs with responsible owners sadly there's also a fair few ineffectual owners with ill trained or untrained dogs, fortunately they're usually on a lead as they daren't let them off. I've been asked several times about Barney as he's almost never on the lead, I can walk him anywhere and if I tell him he'll stay at my heel until I tell him otherwise, most end up disappointed when they ask how long it took to train him, 10 years is the answer, how old is he? 10 years :D. Training never stops.

As for banning certain breeds you're (not you specifically) focusing on the wrong part of the problem, ban the owners. what will happen if you ban the breeds? the owners who want a dog as a status symbol will choose an available breed, rottweilers, dobermans, german shepards etc the problem wont go away. If you mistreat or train any breed to be aggressive then that's what you'll get.
 
Mysterae_ said:
I'd be very concerned on two fronts; firstly who would actually want a Staffordshire Bull Terrier (people should stop trying to make it sound cute with the name "staffie") and secondly if it's from a rescue home why was it in there - obviously broken in some way either by poor nurture or undesirable nature.
Click to expand...

I called it staffie as I couldnt be bothered to type. :p

The first question you raised is one I bring up myself, usually owners will reply with that they obedient and kind. So we just go round in circles.
 
what value for deterrence/prevention is any license? For a driving license it doesn't prevent driving after loss but it does prevent insurance. Being caught without a driving license can be punished with jail. A car being uninsured can be easily checked through ANPR.

for a dog license, will we force all dogs to have a visual "number plate" that would enable checking whether it were insured or the owner licensed? there is no easy fast way for all dogs to be checked from a distance automatically. therefore enforcing dog licenses is impossible.

all "accidental" deaths whether it be drowning in a bath or mauled by a dog or killed by a speeding car are never 100% avoidable and can only be reduced through education. humans are not overly bright as a species and "common sense" is sadly increasingly rare. we used to have regular government warning films on tv - green cross code, clunk click, scary ponds - but these all seem to have stopped. time to bring them back methinks.
 
chrcoluk said:
I called it staffie as I couldnt be bothered to type. :p

The first question you raised is one I bring up myself, usually owners will reply with that they obedient and kind. So we just go round in circles.
Click to expand...

:D waves...

Not having a dig at anyone but my views are only based on actual experience with the breed, living with one for the last few years and meeting several regularly on walks, rather than what I've read/been told. The dogs I meet regularly that are a pain in the **** are the spaniel I've already mentioned and a lass with a bunch of chihuahua's, bad tempered rats that tie her up in knots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom