Does something need to be done about dogs?

[SpellowHouse]

A former policeman on radio 2 earlier was talking about his experiences when previously involved in these kind of situations. He described these people as ignorant and lazy, many single parent households with slightly unruly kids and adding the dog just adds more crazy to an already crazy household. Maybe a bit of a generalisation but probably not that wide of the mark.

One thing I have noticed over the years is that dogs have become bling. Dogs that look like banned breeds are much more popular than they used to be. This tends to be a problem when you ban a breed, instantly the people with no brains want one.

 

[potatolord]

Same thing with a problem family on an estate, criminality in general, the scumbag kids at schools that disrupt every lesson and every teacher wishes they'd just expel.

The difference is though that these are just dogs and we probably could be more proactive, there are protections against evictions, locking people up or expelling them etc.. so even though everyone knows that if certain kids were kicked out of a class or school it would improve things for the rest or if certain families were removed from an estate or building or certain local trouble makers were simply incarcerated then you'd solve a lot of problems we can't do that as there need to be checks and balances against that sort of thing.

The problem with that approach is that those people are always going to be someone's neighbours, wherever you send them. It just shifts the problem elsewhere.

With dogs on the other hand there should be literally nothing wrong with just outright banning some types (make it a broad bull terrier ban) and licensing the rest, have people lose their license if they demonstrate they can't look after a dog etc..

And the problem with this is defining a "type" is very difficult. How do you define a "bull terrier type"? Skull shape? Weight?

You can see the pit bull ban just led to "American bulldogs" and "Bully XL" types, to circumvent legislation.

Having said that, I'd be very happy never to see a Bully XL again, as they've killed two people within two miles of my house in the last year.

The best approach, in my opinion, is to penalise offenders effectively. That probably means a more robust approach to complaints of nuisance dogs and neglect, with earlier seizure of dogs that are deemed a nuisance/ dangerous.

 

[dowie]

The problem with that approach is that those people are always going to be someone's neighbours, wherever you send them. It just shifts the problem elsewhere.

That's fine, just put them all together!

You can see the pit bull ban just led to "American bulldogs" and "Bully XL" types, to circumvent legislation.

That's the issue it's addressing, just ditch all bull terrier types.

Obvs some other dangerous dogs may become more popular but the deaths from bull terriers are waaaay higher than the rest.

 

[potatolord]

That's fine, just put them all together!

Cornwall would be suitably remote, I guess.

That's the issue it's addressing, just ditch all bull terrier types.

Obvs some other dangerous dogs may become more popular but the deaths from bull terriers are waaaay higher than the rest.

Defining that in legislation would be no fun.

Then you'd have to get it through, while MPs were bombarded with photos in the media of "Ripper, the lovable pooch, being made sad by you".

Much quicker and easier to just amend existing legislation to change the existing enforcement/ penalty regime.

 

[dowie]

Defining that in legislation would be no fun.
[...]

Much quicker and easier to just amend existing legislation to change the existing enforcement/ penalty regime.

I didn't express a preference for either approach just the ban itself. If you can ban pit bulls you can ban a broader range of bull terriers.

 

[haribos]

If a breed has a recent history of killing adult males then it should not be allowed to be kept as a pet by the general public, with exception to service animals; e.g. guide dog, sheep dog, police dog etc.

You wouldn't let someone keep a bear and say well it's the owners fault for not training it better after it attacks someone/something. Yet Pibble parents rush to blame the owner and not the breed and will make any excuse to say it's not the dogs fault.

The law is always behind; not updating a banned list because of public outcry and losing support (2022; 34% of UK households have a dog), lack of resources and lack of enforcement.

 

[potatolord]

I didn't express a preference for either approach just the ban itself. If you can ban pit bulls you can ban a broader range of bull terriers.

The original Act only listed two breeds, but there are now 4 on the list, so it's already been amended.

The "guidance for enforcers" relies on the breed description for a pitbull from the US kennel club for identification. A dog has to demonstrate compliance with some, but not all traits, to be considered a pitbull type.

Dangerous dogs law: Guidance for enforcers

This document explains what the law is and assists each agency in defining their responsibilities.

www.gov.uk

Widening that description would be hard work to include both a small staffie and, say, a presa canario.

It's better to enforce the law as it stands more rigorously, in my opinion. Many dogs which killed had a long history of poor behaviour.

 

[Chris Wilson]

If a breed has a recent history of killing adult males then it should not be allowed to be kept as a pet by the general public, with exception to service animals; e.g. guide dog, sheep dog, police dog etc.

You wouldn't let someone keep a bear and say well it's the owners fault for not training it better after it attacks someone/something. Yet Pibble parents rush to blame the owner and not the breed and will make any excuse to say it's not the dogs fault.

The law is always behind; not updating a banned list because of public outcry and losing support (2022; 34% of UK households have a dog), lack of resources and lack of enforcement.

Sounds a bit, err, sexist to me, some (probably not me), might have an issue with the first sentence

Secondly, should I consider myself fortunate to have recently been speaking to the owner of guide dog without being fatally mauled?

Who wrote that twaddle?

 

[Ayahuasca]

Which returnee is behind the @haribos account then?

 

[Chris Wilson]

Which returnee is behind the @haribos account then?

We can probably rule out a pit-bull breeder... HTH

 

[adidan]

You wouldn't let someone keep a bear and say well it's the owners fault for not training it better after it attacks someone/something. Yet Pibble parents rush to blame the owner and not the breed and will make any excuse to say it's not the dogs fault.

Bears and humans don't have a long history of living and working harmoniously together.

 

[dowie]

Widening that description would be hard work to include both a small staffie and, say, a presa canario.

Why would it? Also, I didn't say anything about including a presa canario???

It's better to enforce the law as it stands more rigorously, in my opinion. Many dogs which killed had a long history of poor behaviour.

Why not both?

 

[haribos]

Bears and humans don't have a long history of living and working harmoniously together.

I think that time in history is over, we have police (or guns in some cases, if you're South African/Swedish/American) instead of a need for a vicious dog for home defense. I'm not sure what other needs there are besides service dogs, but I'm interested in what others think about this.

Which returnee is behind the @haribos account then?

I'm new here, assuming returnee is a term for someone who was banned?

Sounds a bit, err, sexist to me, some (probably not me), might have an issue with the first sentence

Secondly, should I consider myself fortunate to have recently been speaking to the owner of guide dog without being fatally mauled?

Who wrote that twaddle?

Didn't intend it to be sexist- but I didn't want to write an essay either!

I put Service dogs in a different 'band' because they have their entire lives controlled by experts and a regiment routine- they don't have the same social life as other dogs.
I'd much rather have a service dog with the tiny % of causing fatality, so I can continue life with less disruption.
I think the general public with dogs that cause fatalities cannot be trusted to give them the same rigorous training, you can't enforce that if it was a requirement either; which is why I think dogs causing fatalities on some scale (pitbull et al) should be banned. Dogs are meant for joy, comfort, entertainment; so, just get a pomeranian instead of a pitbull you struggle to keep leashed on a walk.

 

[potatolord]

Why would it? Also, I didn't say anything about including a presa canario???

I picked that as an example of a known mankilling breed of dog, unless you only want a ban of bull terrier types and not of dangerous dogs?

If it's the former, that's not a good position.

Why not both?

Enforcement of existing laws would be better in my opinion. Creating additional legislation takes time and does not guarantee better enforcement than we have now.

 

[dowie]

I picked that as an example of a known mankilling breed of dog, unless you only want a ban of bull terrier types and not of dangerous dogs?

If it's the former, that's not a good position.

Why not? I've suggested banning all bull terrier types as they kill disproportionately and the pitbull legislation is iffy when other similar bull terrier types have the same issue. You've highlighted some unclear/unspecified issues with banning some type of bull terriers and some other type of dog (some sort of mastiff which may well also be dangerous but I'm not sure is as popular or easy to keep)... it's not clear what the issue is you're highlighting with banning both of those things and I didn't suggest banning the other in the first place ergo I'm not sure why you've brought it up.

Enforcement of existing laws would be better in my opinion. Creating additional legislation takes time and does not guarantee better enforcement than we have now.

I didn't claim it did, those are separate things and clearly, the banned breeds can be added/changed. One thing doesn't prevent the other, council dog wardens and police don't write legislation, ergo your objection to why not both is unclear.

 

[adidan]

I think that time in history is over, we have police (or guns in some cases, if you're South African/Swedish/American) instead of a need for a vicious dog for home defense. I'm not sure what other needs there are besides service dogs, but I'm interested in what others think about this.

I've never met a dog owner who got their dog for home defense.

I've met the most docile rottweilers and the most aggressive Yorkshire terriers, the thing in common is they usually reflect the owners temperament and skill level at dog ownership.

FWIW I've never owned a dog.

 

[haribos]

I've never met a dog owner who got their dog for home defense.

I've met the most docile rottweilers and the most aggressive Yorkshire terriers, the thing in common is they usually reflect the owners temperament and skill level at dog ownership.

FWIW I've never owned a dog.

Anecdotal evidence only supports your argument in your area.
Go to any 'rough' area and find the people who do not want to interact with the police and would rather solve issues themselves. These are the same people who weaponise dogs and do not treat them kindly.
A vicious Yorkshire Terrier is not going to have much success at tearing your throat out where a Rottweiler would. I believe in taking away the risk and not leaving it to chance or bad ownership. Service animals are the exception as they serve a greater purpose. That's just my opinion on the matter entirely.

 

[adidan]

These are the same people who weaponise dogs and do not treat them kindly..

You've said it right there, the problem is with the owner not the dog. Some people should just not be allowed them.

Make it harder to own a dog or start handing out tougher sentences for dog owners if anything happens. And Yorksire terriers have killed babies so I'm not sure you can discount them tbh.

I'm also not sure what you mean by 'in your area' as I've lived in many places in the UK.

 

[sidimmu]

Anecdotal evidence only supports your argument in your area.
Go to any 'rough' area and find the people who do not want to interact with the police and would rather solve issues themselves. These are the same people who weaponise dogs and do not treat them kindly.
A vicious Yorkshire Terrier is not going to have much success at tearing your throat out where a Rottweiler would. I believe in taking away the risk and not leaving it to chance or bad ownership. Service animals are the exception as they serve a greater purpose. That's just my opinion on the matter entirely.

Problem is owner not the dog then.

Down my road there is a pommie, its the most aggressive and vicious little dick around, its always escaping and it comes running at you very intimated and essentially trying to protect its surroundings.... Whats the problem, the owner is the problem, dont want to go in to their problems and why they should not be allowed to look after kids, let alone animals. But this poor dog is outside all day, all night, not exactly given care or love nor is kept entertained or kept on walks.
Its been left to grow up by itself and do everything by itself, I imagine its just a very scared, bored and lonely. I nor anyone else can go near it without a risk of a bite, its never bit me, but its had some bloody good attempts.

Few flats down is one of the husky type doggo's, clearly well loved and looked after, it pretty much watches the pommie in the day being a loud idiot. It responds to its owners calls and frankly just sticks its head between fence posts to stare and look around, completely harmless even though I would say it weighs around 8 stone.
When I lived with my parents, we had 2 staff's that had a total of 14 puppies, we had 2 puppies returned though (many years ago), one puppy came back how it went and was a typical excited puppy and just wanted the love. The other came back aggressive, dirty and just not happy with life.

As stated before and again in this thread, its never the dogs fault, it is forever and always the owners fault.

 

[StriderX]

It really is time to subject pet owners to prosecution of the acts done by their pets because whether the owner acknowledges it or not... it is mostly their fault that their pet has mauled someone to death and should be punished directly.

Start handing out manslaughter charges and pet ownership will right itself fairly quickly.