Does something need to be done about dogs?

[chrcoluk]

I think dogs should be on leads in public places, for people who are scared of dogs, cant walk through parks, on beaches as there is usually always a dog off a lead.

If there is an absolute insistence to take a dog off a lead it should be in specific zones which are designated for off lead dog exercise. So people who dont want to be near loose dogs avoid those zones.

I think your point is valid though about enforcement, realistically it would probably rely on people grassing people up with photo video evidence and then fines been issued, and I think hardly anyone would bother. Family member of mine doesnt even own a lead for the their dog, its never ever on a lead, even in streets. A complete disregard for others who might not be at ease with it (and its a strong bull breed). It is one of the calmest dogs I have witnessed personally but I think it should still be on a lead in public, I dont say anything though, what can be said? It wouldnt change anything, just would cause an argument.

I even see dogs off lead in areas that have very big signs up saying keep dogs on lead and no one cares lol.

 

[Rroff]

I think dogs should be on leads in public places, for people who are scared of dogs, cant walk through parks, on beaches as there is usually always a dog off a lead.

If there is an absolute insistence to take a dog off a lead it should be in specific zones which are designated for off lead dog exercise. So people who dont want to be near loose dogs avoid those zones.

I think your point is valid though about enforcement, realistically it would probably rely on people grassing people up with photo video evidence and then fines been issued, and I think hardly anyone would bother. Family member of mine doesnt even own a lead for the their dog, its never ever on a lead, even in streets. A complete disregard for others who might not be at ease with it (and its a strong bull breed). It is one of the calmest dogs I have witnessed personally but I think it should still be on a lead in public, I dont say anything though, what can be said? It wouldnt change anything, just would cause an argument.

I even see dogs off lead in areas that have very big signs up saying keep dogs on lead and no one cares lol.

Sadly tends to penalise the responsible dog owners, while those who are the problem still won't care

 

[Rroff]

Staffies were, once upon a time, bred for fighting, yes... but thereafter all that aggression was subsequently and very deliberately bred out of the mainstream. It's only in recent times, and by unscrupulous puppy farmers, that they've been crossed with other more aggressive lines.

An oversimplification but a lot of current staffies relate back to dogs bred for traits which made them suitable as farm/ranch companion animals but you also get some which more directly relate back to dogs bred for hunting. As fighting dogs go that is way but back it has left them with physical traits not the best suited to an innocuous dog.

They are a breed which needs a responsible owner - I've a couple of friends who own them, one is always posting on Facebook about how dopey it is with their kids and wouldn't hurt a fly yet I've seen her running screaming across the local park after it after it has started acting unpredictably around other people...

 

[Doobedoo]

Let’s have a bit of perspective though. 60,095 staffies registered in this country between 2010-2020. So I maintain only a minority end up in the hands of morons. With a handful of deaths attributed between that period which is still too many in an ideal world, it’s still a tiny number in comparison.

The Kennel Club, RSPCA, Dogs Trust, and Blue Cross are urging MPs to reject calls from misguided activists that Staffordshire Bull Terriers be added to the list of ‘banned breeds’ under the Dangerous Dogs Act. The leading animal welfare organisations strongly believe that current breed-specific legislation should be repealed and replaced with legislation which targets irresponsible owners and not dogs guilty of nothing other than looking a certain way.

The issue is scheduled to be discussed in Parliament on Monday 16th July, after more than 155,000 people signed a UK Government and Parliament petition in defence of Staffordshire Bull Terriers in the space of just three weeks.

Staffordshire Bull Terriers are loving, loyal dogs and make excellent family pets. Last year they were the twelfth most popular breed in the UK based on Kennel Club registration figures. There is no scientific evidence that suggests the breed is any more dangerous than any other type of dog. If the government decided to ban this breed, tens of thousands of innocent dogs would be seized from their loving homes and held in kennels for long periods of time whilst the court system decided what to do with them.

Any breed of dog has the potential to be a danger in the wrong hands and sadly many instances of dog attack-related fatalities have demonstrated this by involving breeds which are not on the banned list. This is proof that breed-specific legislation does not work and why animal welfare organisations are adamant that legislation targeting the owners of dogs would be much more effective.

The Dangerous Dog Act 1991 was introduced to try to reduce the number of dog attacks and bites by banning so called ‘dangerous’ breeds and types. Breed-specific legislation is based on the assumption that the breeds and types of dogs that are banned are more ‘dangerous’ than the many other dog breeds. In the UK, there are currently four prohibited breeds and types of dog: the Pit Bull Terrier type; Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasiliero.

Many countries have chosen to move away from a breed-specific approach to legislation on dangerous dogs. A number of European countries including Italy and the Netherlands have reversed breed-specific laws in recent years and a number of US states are looking to do the same. Italy repealed their breed-specific legislation in 2009 and replaced it with a piece of legislation that focuses on holding individual dog owners responsible for their dog’s behaviour. The UK animal welfare sector would urge our government to consider doing the same.

 

[Pipe & Slippers]

Let’s have a bit of perspective though. 60,095 staffies registered in this country between 2010-2020. So I maintain only a minority end up in the hands of morons. With a handful of deaths attributed between that period which is still too many in an ideal world, it’s still a tiny number in comparison.

Registered with whom - the KC? If so, they are probably responsible owners. It's the non-KC registered ones that are likely to be the problem

 

[Doobedoo]

Registered with whom - the KC? If so, they are probably responsible owners. It's the non-KC registered ones that are likely to be the problem

So the numbers will be even greater. But yes the owners are the ones at fault not an entire breed of dog.

Staffordshire Bull Terriers: registered number 2011-2023 | Statista

This statistic shows the number of Staffordshire Bull Terrier dogs registered in the United Kingdom (UK) from 2011 to 2023.

www.statista.com

 

[Doobedoo]

Here’s a good one.

 

[bigmike20vt]

So the numbers will be even greater. But yes the owners are the ones at fault not an entire breed of dog.

Staffordshire Bull Terriers: registered number 2011-2023 | Statista

This statistic shows the number of Staffordshire Bull Terrier dogs registered in the United Kingdom (UK) from 2011 to 2023.

www.statista.com

it is never the animals fault you are right............. but if it is your child who had been mauled i dont think you would care who was at fault, assigning blame would not bring your kid back.

and yes there is an argument for knowing how to react around certain animals... but kids will be kids and ultimately i would put a childs life infront on an animals every time even IF the child was an idiot and had tried to play wrestle the animal.
I do think animal owner ship needs some control. take a shotgun, they are legal in the uk and i am fine with it, much like fishing you dont get better free range food than something shot outside (not that i am interested myself)...... but not just anyone is allowed to own a gun.... (indeed that should be tightended up as well but that is another thread).

much like (in uk, in America i am not so sure) you are not allowed to own a pet lion, animals with known agressive tendancies if not handled correctly should be under strict control with owners having to prove in advance they are capable and have the resources to look after the animal properly (and associated costs would be put onto the licence needed to own one imo).

whilst i am not a fan of terriers, i adore german shephards and i remember a rottweiler dog as a kid, it was one of the most affectionate ones of its breed i have ever seen, they are amazing animals, and loyal, but no one should ignore the fact that they are if not trained and controlled correctly naturally they are predators esp if more than one of them.. There is a reason why the police use german shepherds.

 

[Doobedoo]

it is never the animals fault you are right............. but if it is your child who had been mauled i dont think you would care who was at fault, assigning blame would not bring your kid back.

and yes there is an argument for knowing how to react around certain animals... but kids will be kids and ultimately i would put a childs life infront on an animals every time even IF the child was an idiot and had tried to play wrestle the animal.
I do think animal owner ship needs some control. take a shotgun, they are legal in the uk and i am fine with it, much like fishing you dont get better free range food than something shot outside (not that i am interested myself)...... but not just anyone is allowed to own a gun.... (indeed that should be tightended up as well but that is another thread).

much like (in uk, in America i am not so sure) you are not allowed to own a pet lion, animals with known agressive tendancies if not handled correctly should be under strict control with owners having to prove in advance they are capable and have the resources to look after the animal properly (and associated costs would be put onto the licence needed to own one imo).

whilst i am not a fan of terriers, i adore german shephards and i remember a rottweiler dog as a kid, it was one of the most affectionate ones of its breed i have ever seen, they are amazing animals, and loyal, but no one should ignore the fact that they are if not trained and controlled correctly naturally they are predators esp if more than one of them.. There is a reason why the police use german shepherds.

Yeah of course emotions will rule over logic but context has to come into it. Why was the child in contact with the Dog? How was the Dog trained and raised because we have far more stories of staffies being nothing but kind and affectionate towards humans and children. One of best mates was brought up with a staffie along with 2 bothers and a sister. The dog was always friendly and affectionate whenever I came into contact, but if it saw a cat it was off. That’s nature to some point. The dog eventually passed away after my mate moved out but the mum and dad replaced it with another staffie due to their fondness for the breed.

Perspective is everything and we have in orders of magnitude far more positive stories than negative, but the negative always hits harder, like the saying goes it’s far easier to earn a reputation than get rid of one.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I think dogs should be on leads in public places, for people who are scared of dogs, cant walk through parks, on beaches as there is usually always a dog off a lead.

If there is an absolute insistence to take a dog off a lead it should be in specific zones which are designated for off lead dog exercise. So people who dont want to be near loose dogs avoid those zones.

I think Chavs, gang-bangers, scrotes and other such undesirables should be on leads in public places, as people who are scared of them cant walk through parks, on beaches, etc, as there is usually always a scrote freely roaming...
TBH, I think most people who are scared of dogs just didn't get taught how to behave around them, like we used to in schools and at home. My wife is scared of dogs, yet we have three and it was her who wanted them.

The problem with designated dog areas is that it will take up a lot of land that other people would want for their purposes, be they playgrounds, recreactional walking, allotments, or whatever.
They also cost money to use - Most charge £10-20 per hour... That's a good £11,000 per dog owner per year... it's a dog, not a horse!

Done privately, they also cost, which is the big moneymaker.

How Much Does It Cost To Set Up A Dog Field? - British Dog Fields | For Field Owners and Users

Using our own Dog Field Cost Calculator, set up costs are approximately £20,000-30,000 depending on a few important factors.

britishdogfields.com

An oversimplification but a lot of current staffies relate back to dogs bred for traits which made them suitable as farm/ranch companion animals but you also get some which more directly relate back to dogs bred for hunting. As fighting dogs go that is way but back it has left them with physical traits not the best suited to an innocuous dog.

That's the thing about hereditary traits, though - You can retain the intelligence, herding, tracking, guarding, and all the other desirable traits, while still breeding out the undesirable ones. This is exemplified with dogs like the Welsh Collie, which is bred purely for their abilities rather than a standardised appearance and expected behaviour like most breeds, which is why they're not officially recognised as a breed by any kennel clubs.

it is never the animals fault you are right............. but if it is your child who had been mauled i dont think you would care who was at fault, assigning blame would not bring your kid back.
and yes there is an argument for knowing how to react around certain animals... but kids will be kids and ultimately i would put a childs life infront on an animals every time even IF the child was an idiot and had tried to play wrestle the animal.

It depends greatly on circumstances, but as kids we were all given good (and sometimes VERY strict) instructions on how to treat dogs and especially what you must NEVER do to them. Everyone knows not to go speeding past a horse on the road, or tap on a fish tank, or lift a rabbit by the ears... so, with dog ownership being so common, when did that teaching fall out of circulation?
I've known of several kids get mauled after they spent the previous hour leaning over the neighbour's wall into the dog's garden, teasing and throwing stones, poking it with sticks and so on... but while what happened to them is sad, it was their own stupid fault, and most of my generation would agree that they got what they deserved.

Rather than expensive legislation enforced by a nanny state, ensuring owners and people around them behave responsibly (and take personal responsibility) is a far better solution all round.

 

[chrcoluk]

Isnt recognising dogs should be on a lead part of been responsible? But a moot argument anyway, because even if there was a clamp down, I dont think enforcement would be there so wouldnt happen anyway.

I do remember when walking through the park to school as a kid, at least most of the dog walkers used to stick to the edges of the park away from the path as a curtesy.

We will just have people talking about the same thing in 10 years time.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Isnt recognising dogs should be on a lead part of been responsible? But a moot argument anyway, because even if there was a clamp down, I dont think enforcement would be there so wouldnt happen anyway.

I do remember when walking through the park to school as a kid, at least most of the dog walkers used to stick to the edges of the park away from the path as a curtesy.

We will just have people talking about the same thing in 10 years time.

Recognising when dogs should be on a lead is yes. Anyone responsible will be monitoring the situation continuously, no different to any parent out with a child (sadly you see many owners of kids and dogs far more interested in their phones)
Now I know I can walk mine anywhere anytime without a lead, that doesn't mean I do. I generally walk away from others and at quieter times when possible, some areas we walk have relatively narrow paths through trees or along the river so you meet people traveling in the opposite direction so you assess the situation as it unfolds. How many adults, children, animals? On lead or off lead? Kids ages, rowdy or quiet? I'm looking for eye contact between parents when they see my dog, do they call their kids to them, hold their kids hand, scoop up small kids and carry them?. All this and more will change how I react with the dog. More often than not if kids or animals are involved I'll call mine to heal and possibly step off the path, if the parents or kids are anxious then I'll stoop and loop my fingers through the dogs harness, not because I'm concerned he'll react but because it puts other people's minds at rest. I'll always greet people with a smile and a hello, sometimes the parents/kids will stop and give him a fuss which he loves.

In an ideal world there only needs to be one rule, don't be a ****

 

[Devilman]

Isnt recognising dogs should be on a lead part of been responsible? But a moot argument anyway, because even if there was a clamp down, I dont think enforcement would be there so wouldnt happen anyway.

I do remember when walking through the park to school as a kid, at least most of the dog walkers used to stick to the edges of the park away from the path as a curtesy.

We will just have people talking about the same thing in 10 years time.

Pretty sure they did that just to avoid having to pick up their dog's **** after they "done their business" at the edge of the field, not out of any courtesy for other path users

 

[ttaskmaster]

Isnt recognising dogs should be on a lead part of been responsible? But a moot argument anyway, because even if there was a clamp down, I dont think enforcement would be there so wouldnt happen anyway.

I do remember when walking through the park to school as a kid, at least most of the dog walkers used to stick to the edges of the park away from the path as a curtesy.

We will just have people talking about the same thing in 10 years time.

As Foggy says, recognising when they need to be on lead is responsible.
I sometimes keep distance too, but that's because I don't want hordes of unruly kids coming screaming over, shouting "DOGGYYYYYYYYYYY" and thinking they'll get to pet something they just scared the **** out of...

 

[coupe69]

I even see dogs off lead in areas that have very big signs up saying keep dogs on lead and no one cares lol

Unfortunately, as with a lot of things in todays world, there's a complete lack of consideration for others from a large swathe of society, who think the rules don't apply to them.

 

[Doobedoo]

Unfortunately, as with a lot of things in todays world, there's a complete lack of consideration for others from a large swathe of society, who think the rules don't apply to them.

It doesn’t help when we have a government that are supposed to be an example to follow, yet think the rules don’t apply to them either.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

and yes there is an argument for knowing how to react around certain animals... but kids will be kids and ultimately i would put a childs life infront on an animals every time even IF the child was an idiot and had tried to play wrestle the animal.

I'm not sure why the onus ought to be on the child to know how to behave around potentially dangerous animals, call me old fashioned but I always believed it was the responsibility of the owner to make sure his animal knew how to behave properly around people not the other way around

much like (in uk, in America i am not so sure) you are not allowed to own a pet lion, animals with known agressive tendancies if not handled correctly should be under strict control with owners having to prove in advance they are capable and have the resources to look after the animal properly (and associated costs would be put onto the licence needed to own one imo).

There is a big issue in the US with exotic pets its legal to own lions, tigers etc in certain states infact there are more tigers in private menageries than there are the wild I heard, but thats a whole other story. Also they don't talk them for walks.

 

[Felon]

Isnt recognising dogs should be on a lead part of been responsible? But a moot argument anyway, because even if there was a clamp down, I dont think enforcement would be there so wouldnt happen anyway.

I think this is at the heart of the whole issue,

I mean - responsible owners with insurance, knowledge, love of the breed and their animal along with respect for other people/dogs, are always going to be a tiny proportion of the problem.. You could clamp down on dangerous dogs with the harshest rules ever, but the idiots who don't care - will continue to be idiots and not care, meanwhile the responsible people will be responsible anyway.... (like they were before)

I suppose it's like uninsured drivers, the penalties for not having it are huge, (points, court, car seized, etc etc) but people who don't give a **** still drive without insurance anyway and always will, even when they're banned they'll still drive*

*That's not to say we shouldn't try to make things better, but I sometimes worry that we end up trying to over-optimise society by slapping rules and regulations that affect sensible people... /rant

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

I'm not sure why the onus ought to be on the child to know how to behave around potentially dangerous animals, call me old fashioned but I always believed it was the responsibility of the owner to make sure his animal knew how to behave properly around people not the other way around

No one said the onus should be on the child, but a bit of knowledge and understanding goes a long way. However the onus is on the parent to ensure that their child is safe, or would you prefer kids learn everything the hard way? I suppose they'll only touch the oven, kettle, radiator, fire once, they'll also only get run over once, harsh lesson though.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I'm not sure why the onus ought to be on the child to know how to behave around potentially dangerous animals, call me old fashioned but I always believed it was the responsibility of the owner to make sure his animal knew how to behave properly around people not the other way around

Because while every animal (and many other things) are potentially dangerous, most will only become actually dangerous if the child does not behave properly. Fix that and you stop a good many problems from ever presenting themselves.

Between the dog and the child, the latter is easier to teach simple rules for the complex situations like these, and it's easier to test whether they understand without actually putting them in the scenario.
Between them again, it's usually the latter's behaviour that (often inadvertently) excites/upsets the dog, which is why they need to learn what they should and should never do. This is how such children grow up to be responsible adults who are not terrified of (or traumatised by) animals.

It's a bit like the rules of aviation, but with mental agility instead of aerobatic agility, in that the one with greater agility is more responsible for resolving a potential conflict. You cannot train a dog to human standards of behaviour or reason... but you can train a human like that. Dogs can be very well trained and, as with the weird aviation analogy, there is still a good amount of responsibility on the less agile to not cause or exacerbate problems too, which falls to the owner in lieu of the dog being able to converse in English.