Does something need to be done about dogs?

[Ayahuasca]

My point is that requiring a muzzle on all dogs doesn't solve a problem.

It makes life more difficult for responsible owners (e.g. the ones who actually listen) & more uncomfortable for their dogs (who would already have a muzzle on anyway if the owner thought there was any possibility of them being dangerous).

Meanwhile, Dean and Shazza happily wander along with their 14 dogs they've trained to kill, ignoring the requirement (and lets face it, the realistic chances of there being any consequences are negligible).

It doesn't completely solve a problem, I mean, what rules/laws do? Making certain crimes punishable by death didn't stop people from committing them. It would, however, reduce the number of serious attacks because some people would abide by it.

Not all of these attacks are your Dean and Shazza types walking around with a trained to kill XL bully, plenty of normal people with large or aggressive breeds take a turn one day and decide it's time to chew.

 

[Haggisman]

Not all of these attacks are your Dean and Shazza types walking around with a trained to kill XL bully, plenty of normal people with large or aggressive breeds take a turn one day and decide it's time to chew.

I'd question the "normality" or sanity of anyone wanting to have a large or aggressive breed of dog (outside of working dogs), but fair enough, point taken.

I still disagree with the notion of muzzling all dogs "just in case" however.

 

[Thekwango]

Only if people actually follow the requirement, as I've said above a couple of times.

you've said requiring a muzzle on dogs doesn't solve a problem, but it does. it would solve the problem of dogs that manage to bite while on a leash or dogs that manage to get away from their owner.
you can argue if you want by saying that people wouldn't follow the rules, which is fair enough, but if the rule was in place and adhered to it would solve a problem.

 

[Ayahuasca]

I'd question the "normality" or sanity of anyone wanting to have a large or aggressive breed of dog (outside of working dogs), but fair enough, point taken.

Where would you personally draw the line on what's considered large? For example, I don't consider a male lab to be large because I'm a big lad and I can control one, but I've seen one pull an average-sized woman over and drag her across some grass. They can be up to 80lbs, which is the lower end of the XL bully weight range.

I still disagree with the notion of muzzling all dogs "just in case" however.

So did I in my first reply to you. What I disagreed with was that muzzling a leashed dog would offer no additional protection.

I'm aware that this is hypothetical, it would never be universally enforced, and even if it were, some owners would ignore it. However, if it were introduced, it would still save the lives of a few people and quite a few other dogs or animals every year, in cases where it isn't Deano's XL bully on a mad one and it was just a matter of time. There would also be a reduction in dog ownership, as many law-abiding citizens wouldn't want to own one if it required muzzling them in public.

As I said a few posts ago, it's essentially a pointless debate because we're not going to see it implemented.

 

[BUDFORCE]

If someone invades my personal space, even if they're not being aggressive, is it acceptable for me to just outright punch them?

Yes?

 

[Ayahuasca]

Yes?

So you're in a supermarket and someone pushes in front of you to grab an item off a shelf and you think it would be acceptable to punch them?

You must have started early in spoons today.

 

[413x]

According to their owners, no dogs are dangerous. And that's kinda my point here. ALL dogs are dangerous given the wrong circumstances, so lets not argue about it, lets just muzzle them all. I mean why do owners have issue with this? It's for the dogs protection as well as the children. If dog owners were truly sensible, its something they would already do.

Because more than 99.99 percent of the time it's not necessary.

The tiny risk makes it not worth it.
A dog doesn't enjoy having a muzzle on its face. So why put one on for such isolated incidents?

The law with XLs needing muzzles is reasonable. There are enough attacks so the risk is high enough on balance to apply that rule.

 

[Haggisman]

Where would you personally draw the line on what's considered large?

Too big for the owner to control!

If we're going down the hypothetical route of everyone adhering to the rules, then requiring licencing would be a far better solution - having to prove you have both the ability and knowledge to control your deadly killing machine, rather than sticking a plaster muzzle over it and hoping for the best. A big dog with a muzzle on could still do plenty of damage with its claws (or even just its weight); and doesn't even need to be aggressive to do so, a 40kg dog jumping on a toddler isn't going to end well, even if it's only trying to play a bit too boisterously.

 

[Ayahuasca]

Too big for the owner to control!

How would you go about measuring this then? Pretty much anyone can control a puppy and you could end up with a 60lb lab or an 80lb one. So it depends on the size/strength of the owner and the dog when fully grown, they also may not be the only ones walking it.

If we're going down the hypothetical route of everyone adhering to the rules, then requiring licencing would be a far better solution - having to prove you have both the ability and knowledge to control your deadly killing machine, rather than sticking a plaster muzzle over it and hoping for the best. A big dog with a muzzle on could still do plenty of damage with its claws (or even just its weight); and doesn't even need to be aggressive to do so, a 40kg dog jumping on a toddler isn't going to end well, even if it's only trying to play a bit too boisterously.

While a more realistic option than muzzling all dogs, wouldn't licensing just mean that the same people you're worried about in the muzzling scenario (Dean and Shazza), would ignore this rule/law as well? They would only obtain the dogs illegally and the 'black market' for them would grow.

I have never argued that a muzzle would prevent all damage, but it does stop a dog's primary means of killing or seriously injuring. God forbid my toddler was jumped at/on by a 40kg dog while out in public, if he were though, I'd feel better if it were muzzled knowing it couldn't lead to a bite if he lashed out at it. Plenty of attacks start with dogs just playing.

 

[ttaskmaster]

According to their owners, no dogs are dangerous. And that's kinda my point here. ALL dogs are dangerous given the wrong circumstances, so lets not argue about it, lets just muzzle them all. I mean why do owners have issue with this? It's for the dogs protection as well as the children. If dog owners were truly sensible, its something they would already do.

ALL people are dangerous, given the wrong circumstances.
I therefore require all humans under 75 to be handcuffed and ball-gagged, for the safety of my children, and all males with internet access to be blindfolded and their hands encased in steel, to guard against paedos.

You can not create a public culture of responsibility... that's just not a practical argument. Muzzling all dogs is. It's simple and 100% effective.

People have already been pretty responsible as a public body. It's only in recent times, with ever-more restrictive and prohibitive laws that responsible behaviour has begun declining.

Muzzling the majority will just **** them off and make them aggressive, in situations where it would never have been a problem.
Muzzling takes away a lot of the dog's natural defenses and limits their ability to be comfortable in their surroundings - This means they will be hyper-sensitive to anything and they'll start perceiving things as a threat, even if it's not, resulting in even more aggression and even more behavioural problems.

But since owners do occasionally suffer from incidents and escapes at home too, presumably your law would require every dog to be muzzled at all times, for the entirety of it's life?

Ridiculing practical solutions is not in itself a solution. Is that all you have?

When it's not a viable solution, it will be ridiculed.
Muzzling laws sound all good and well, but what sort of people do you think are blatantly going to disobey them?
Who do you think is going to enforce the new laws, and how much do you imagine it will cost?

Most dogs won't have the ability to tear your arm off either if they do object

Anything around 10kg or more can tear out your throat, or rip out an artery. For many children in the death statistics, the dogs were even smaller.

A big dog with a muzzle on could still do plenty of damage with its claws (or even just its weight); and doesn't even need to be aggressive to do so, a 40kg dog jumping on a toddler isn't going to end well, even if it's only trying to play a bit too boisterously.

For the record, a 12kg Border Collie would be more than enough to do lethal damage under the same circumstances.

 

[chrcoluk]

So you're in a supermarket and someone pushes in front of you to grab an item off a shelf and you think it would be acceptable to punch them?

You must have started early in spoons today.

You dont seen to be taking into account we dont speak dog language.

If a dog mimics an action that could mean aggressive behaviour, and that dogs are known to bite, and that certain breeds if they bite have a decent chance of killing you, then yes people are going to react differently to that vs a human pushing in front of them in a queue, one of the mistakes dog owners can make is treating a dog like a they would a human.

A good owner would recognise the dog they own is always a potential threat, and act accordingly. I think it should be part of training to get a dog license.

 

[Ayahuasca]

You dont seen to be taking into account we dont speak dog language.

If a dog mimics an action that could mean aggressive behaviour, and that dogs are known to bite, and that certain breeds if they bite have a decent chance of killing you, then yes people are going to react differently to that vs a human pushing in front of them in a queue, one of the mistakes dog owners can make is treating a dog like a they would a human.

A good owner would recognise the dog they own is always a potential threat, and act accordingly. I think it should be part of training to get a dog license.

I didn't have to take that into account, the only thing I questioned there was BUDFORCE saying it was acceptable to punch someone who had invaded their personal space in a non-aggressive way. The answer should be no, but then I could see it turn into a yes after 10 pints of Tim Martin's finest ales.

 

[Semple]

Dogs of peace.

Honestly it's the same story with these dogs every time.

I think that's more down to the human involved. It's no different than parents of cretins who believe their little darlings wouldn't hurt a fly, yet they're down their local park beating up kids half their ages.

 

[Felon]

A big dog with a muzzle on could still do plenty of damage with its claws (or even just its weight); and doesn't even need to be aggressive to do so, a 40kg dog jumping on a toddler isn't going to end well, even if it's only trying to play a bit too boisterously.

If you've got a toddler in the same room as a 40KG dog (presumably the dog is an adult) then that's a common sense failure, because unless that dog has grown up with the kids - it's going to be risky and difficult having a dog of any size around the children, I'd never introduce a large dog to a toddler or child if it hadn't been brought up around kids.

Weight and size restrictions aren't going to make much sense, because you're going to end up restricting some of the laziest easy going breeds ever (Great Danes, Golden Retrievers, etc) whilst giving a pass to dogs which can be more aggressive, and have a profile of causing more damage (smaller bully breeds), because they're smaller and weigh less.

You'd be better off having a tiered licensing system based on the breed and risk, but given the current state of public services - it would cost the same as HS2 to implement, and would get cancelled halfway through.

 

[VincentHanna]

Maybe we should look at the relative danger.

There are 13.5 million dogs in the UK, and in 2022 10 people were fatally attacked.

There are 8 million 10-19 year olds in the UK and in 2022 30+ under 16's committed murder.

Ergo we would be 'safer' tying teenagers hands behind their backs when out and about, than muzzling dogs.

 

[Dis86]

Maybe we should look at the relative danger.

There are 13.5 million dogs in the UK, and in 2022 10 people were fatally attacked.

There are 8 million 10-19 year olds in the UK and in 2022 30+ under 16's committed murder.

Ergo we would be 'safer' tying teenagers hands behind their backs when out and about, than muzzling dogs.

Dogs aren't needed. Teenagers, unfortunately, are.

 

[Felon]

Dogs aren't needed. Teenagers, unfortunately, are.

Let's ban everything that isn't needed because an infinitesimally small number of people were unintentionally harmed or killed.

That sounds like an awesome society to live in, can't wait for it.

 

[Dis86]

Let's ban everything that isn't needed because an infinitesimally small number of people were unintentionally harmed or killed.

That sounds like an awesome society to live in, can't wait for it.

Its not infinitesimal though, is it? It's a measurable number and each one of those people killed was a life. Someone's family. Someone's friend.
I've also posted the number of people injured and hospitalised by dogs several times in this thread. It's not small at all.

 

[bloodiedathame]

Or we could stop the Government from getting involved in every little aspect of our lives and just use some common sense.

*(Appreciate that doesn't help my kids getting attacked by someone else's dog).

 

[Freakbro]

Or we could stop the Government from getting involved in every little aspect of our lives and just use some common sense.

*(Appreciate that doesn't help my kids getting attacked by someone else's dog).

Unfortunately common sense isn't all that common at all!