Does something need to be done about dogs?

Exactly. So do the same for dog owners.

It'll achieve nothing. Law abiding owners will apply for a license and their dogs will already be chipped, others wont bother most likely the same owners who haven't had their dogs chipped either. Chances of being caught/fined, pretty much zero unless their dog decides to eat someone which contrary to the opinions in this thread is rare. The police don't have the time or man power to keep on top of it as they're stretched too thin as it is and can't keep on top of serious crime.
 
Breeding house, dogs known by people around area to be aggressive, especially one of them, which probably was one of the ones that attacked her as it seems not all of them did.

Shock that isn't it, owners unable to control their dogs.

Seems there are loads of these dogs in this area, guess we will see more attacks up there then?

So the scumbag breeder got killed? Oh well.
 
That's quite clearly false:
Not at all - Either it is a risk, or it's not, and the fact that Labs are right there on your infographic shows it IS a risk.
The likelihood may be lower, but that is far less of a factor compared to the consequences, ie someone dying - It's for this same reason (low likelihood, high consequence) that we still do things like wearing seatbelts.

The risk remains, so again I assert that the likelihood comprises factors other than simply 'breed' or 'type', which would be a far more useful avenue of exploration.
 
Not at all - Either it is a risk, or it's not, and the fact that Labs are right there on your infographic shows it IS a risk.

No, that's a different argument now. That various dogs pose "a risk" doesn't mean that the risk from them is the same.

The claim I took issue with was "there's no difference in the risk".
 
No, that's a different argument now. That various dogs pose "a risk" doesn't mean that the risk from them is the same.

The claim I took issue with was "there's no difference in the risk".
There is no difference - Either it can and has killed, or it can't/hasn't.
That is all you need to start considering taking preventative action.
 
There is no difference - Either it can and has killed, or it can't/hasn't.

Do you really not understand that the risk of two different things or scenarios can vary?

If you bet on a single number in roulette vs betting on red do you consider the risk to be the same because the bet either wins or not?
 
I bet nothing ever changes, but I'm really not keen on dogs and dog faeces in public places. I know it's the owners who don't clean up after the dogs at issue. Seriously though, people don't clean up after their dogs outside schools and in parks.
 
Do you really not understand that the risk of two different things or scenarios can vary?
If you bet on a single number in roulette vs betting on red do you consider the risk to be the same because the bet either wins or not?

Yes, but that is never the defining factor in safety-related things like this. It's the fact that it can and has happened that drives it.

The Vauxhall Zafira had the highest accident rate per 100k vehicles up to 2019, yet there was no specific road safety initiative I'm aware of to address that one model... Instead the focus was on tactics to reduce accidents in general.

This doesn't seem to make much practical sense..
That's how safety legislation generally works, though - It only takes a few KSIs and often only the one.
 
Yes, but that is never the defining factor in safety-related things like this. It's the fact that it can and has happened that drives it.

No it isn't, there's a ban on specific breeds of Dogs. The pitbull breed is banned in the UK, AFAIK you can't own a wolf either unless licensed.

Likewsie I don't think big cats are allowed without a license.

an issue with the current pitbull ban is that there are other bull terrier types not banned.
 
Last edited:
When you see tyres suspended in the air, or heavy ropes hung off tree branches it's because the "trainer" is encouraging the dog to lunge and hold a sustained bite with its body weight off the ground. MOST dogs will attack a person by lunging and taking a brief bite then let go and reassess the situation, or then just run off. A dog trained to fight either other dogs or as a serious protection or military dog is trained to bite and shake, and NOT back off after one bite, but to hold and chew, whatever happens. Most dogs, even big dogs won't do this, even with training, most won't even have a proper go at a person attacking THEM, but the ones that will are the ones that do real damage to either a person or another dog.

I have taken in rescue dogs from the livestock guarding breeds all my adult life, and believe me, if you get a big dog that's trained to properly maul something, be it a predator or a person, it's a formidable opponent. These pit bull "kind of" breed types are being bred to not only circumvent the dangerous dogs act, but more concerning it's obvious there are some "breeders" actively training them to bite and hold from puppies, before selling them to anyone with the cash.

If you've got just one 120 pound fit and confident dog properly holding you that's penetrated an artery, you are in BIG trouble, if you have more than one you are lucky if you survive without skilled assistance to first get them off you, then to stop the bleeding. Ask me how I know....

But joking aside, these unscrupulous people are deliberately seeking buyers who want a potential killer, and usually the sort that buy them are into some sort of criminality or are just plain stupid inadequates, who want a fierce looking status symbol, (in the eyes of those that rate such things as a status symbol), and they have neither the environment to exercise and occupy them, or the intelligence and desire to learn what's involved in responsibly having these sorts of potential beasts.

The number of rescues I have had over the years that came from utterly unsuitable environments or owned by people with no idea what the bundle of fluff at 16 weeks will be like when it's a 2 year old "teenager" and testing its owner for who is the boss. Or has been let off the lead near livestock, (which even a livestock guarding or herding breed needs training to see as things to defend or herd, and not attack), and mauled some expensive farm animals to death.

It's often sad and sometimes disgusting to see dogs having to be shot by farmers or put down, due entirely to their owners irresponsibility, but I have also had huge pleasure from rescue work, mixed with huge frustration in seeing how some people keep their animals, and what their probable real motive was in buying (or breeding) them.

Rant over :)
 
No it isn't, there's a ban on specific breeds of Dogs. The pitbull breed is banned in the UK, AFAIK you can't own a wolf either unless licensed.

Likewsie I don't think big cats are allowed without a license.

an issue with the current pitbull ban is that there are other bull terrier types not banned.
That's exactly the point - They're outright banned, yet people are STILL getting them and they are STILL hurting people.
It doesn't matter how many there are, it's the fact that it's happening at all when, in theory, it should be impossible due to the ban...

But at the same time, dogs that don't usually kill and instead leave those they attack with significant injuries, are just as much of a problem and just as much of a risk, just for different reasons. The same approach to mitigating those risks is what's needed, and since improper human involvement seems to be the most consistent factor in all this, I'd suggest looking instead to that.
 
That's exactly the point - They're outright banned, yet people are STILL getting them and they are STILL hurting people.
They're not all banned, there are bull terrier types that aren't banned.

But at the same time, dogs that don't usually kill and instead leave those they attack with significant injuries, are just as much of a problem and just as much of a risk

That's making no sense again, not all dogs pose the same level of risk.
 
OK, so you're fine with having your child's face ripped off by an attacking dog, so long as it doesn't actually kill the kid?

That also makes no sense... you're not very coherent here. How does pointing out that different types of dogs pose different risks lead to a conclusion that I'm happy with having a child's face ripped off?
 
I'm on a roll. Please indulge me to give one example from years of experience with livestock protection and other large breed dogs.

Someone reads some guff on the internet about how X breed is great with kids and would protect young Simon with its life. A "Good family dog".

Firstly, it probably wouldn't, in my (considerable, and I am not being arrogant, I don't pretend to know much, but I do know a lot about dogs) experience, 95% of dogs won't protect someone with their life. But that matters not because...

Secondly, some, even many, breeds of dog almost certainly could, or would have a bite at someone attacking a family member. Not give them a proper mauling while someone hits them with a spade, just a bite and run. But just a bite and run can cause some nasty trauma, especially to a child.

The third thing is where it all goes pear shaped and is mainly not pre-considered.


Simon is playing quietly in the garden, he has young friends round, the dog is running free, everyone including the dog are quite happy.

Simon and young Joe from the down the road start to have a play fight, rolling on the floor, shouting and screeching in excitement.

Two things have now occurred. The dog thinks Joe is attacking Simon. They are both on the floor.... From that point on anything can happen. It can be bad... Is it the dog's fault? Is it Simon and Joe's fault? No, the fault lies with the dog's owner, letting this perfectly foreseeable situation occur. Not through malice, but usually for simply not understanding how the relatively primitive canine mind works. Whatever, Joe now needs stitches, or worse. Blame is being pursued.

If I have one piece of advice to people with kids, (and even to adults), PLEASE teach them NEVER to crouch down or even worse, get on the floor with a strange dog, and even more so don't go sticking their own face in the dog's face. Don't let them start running around with other kids or adults in a manner a loose dog might see as a fight or chase in action that requires its intervention. If the dog makes the wrong call on this...

Dogs are fantastic companions to mankind and have been for time immemorial, it just needs man to use his supposedly superior brain to maintain a healthy and safe relationship with our canine friends.
 
That also makes no sense... you're not very coherent here. How does pointing out that different types of dogs pose different risks lead to a conclusion that I'm happy with having a child's face ripped off?
Because it's not a different risk. The individual getting attacked still suffers life-altering injuries.
But the mere fact that they don't typically die (although some still did) would completely exclude them from your statistics, though and thus you seem happy to just ignore a massive part of the same problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom