Stick all the scumbags and all the dangerous dog breeds all on one island. Now there’s a reality tv show I could watch lol
Edit: oh and all cats. ******* things!
Last edited:
Does something need to be done about dogs?
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
Edit: oh and all cats. ******* things!
Why is that *the* answer? That seems to be this monocausal blinkered view again where everything is down to the owners.
Legality clearly is an issue w.r.t the things you chose to use as examples - the government doesn't just start a campaign to try to prevent drink driving in isolation, they also outlaw it, introduce penalties for it and equip the police to monitor/test for it!
I'm all for a campaign to highlight the dangers of say bull terrier breeds but that seems somewhat ineffective if you're not also getting rid of the breed too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,488
Because when you register as the keeper of a dog, you are then legally responsible for both the wellbeing of that dog and for ensuring its good behaviour.
So yes, with few exceptions and then only on an individual case basis, the buck usually does stop with the owners. You get the owners acting responsibly, the vast majority of the problems will cease... and it may indeed seem quite magical to you, but peer influence is clearly a major driving factor in peoples' behaviour.
I never said they did "just start a campaign". I don't know how you came up with that strawman argument.
The issue is that it was already outlawed, but was being ignored by a large number of people, which only then led to a (very soft) campaign to increase awareness and instill such behaviour as unacceptable in the minds of society.
It's the same issue here:
- Having an animal that is dangeorusly out of control already is outlawed.
- Failing to meet the basic welfare need of an animal already is outlawed.
- Causing an animal to suffer unnecessarily already is outlawed.
- Failing to chip a dog and register/maintain your details already is outlawed.
- Failing to clean up after your animal already is outlawed.
So rather than imposing bans and more laws that still just get ignored, the better approach is to address what drives them to such bad behaviour in the first place and reverse it through things like social and peer pressure.
You either raise the standards by teaching people to act responsibly and treat things properly, or you take the things away and keep treating them like children. You can't do both... so which one are you?
Last edited:
It's not just people's behaviour though, you've still got the massive and rather obvious blind spot here re: the dogs themselves!
So your campaign is just going to be about the behaviour of owners? It's still pretty hand-wavey... peer pressure to be better dog owners? Not peer pressure to not own certain breeds?
You either raise the standard by teaching people to drink and drive responsibly or you take things away and keep treating them like children. You can't fo both... so which one are you?
Back in reality of course you can do both. You can ban certain breeds and you can encourage responsible dog ownership.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,488
As previously discussed in this and other threads, breed alone has only a minor bearing on any dog's behaviour, so banning based on breed is a rather flawed tactic. That'd be like banning sports cars, to stop people from speeding in their estates and hatchbacks.
The vast majority of incidents occur because the owners either lack sufficient knowledge to properly handle the dog, or because they don't care enough to do right by their dogs. The sort of dogs that get labelled as troublesome breeds tend to be those that are highly trainable and very responsive to their environments, so a careless or inattentive owner often (unwittingly or otherwise) teaches them bad behaviour, which doesn't become apparent until an incident occurs.
If their owners were more responsible, you wouldn't need to ban those breeds, and it's been argued from both pro and anti-dog sides that it should be called the Vulnerable Dogs Act rather than the DDA because of the abuse and neglect to which such dogs are so often subjected.
I'm the one that changes that to 'drink or drive'.
Banning things just costs time, money and enforcement resources, while doing nothing to actually address the human factors behind them, and often only impacts those who were already responsible owners.
Banning didn't work for guns, as criminals just carried on getting them through the same illegal channels as they did before the ban.
Banning various knives didn't reduce knife crime either, and in fact it's been increasing again.
Banning films and other media usually just elevates its status and makes it more desirable to people.
Banning dogs also clearly doesn't work, as people still have those banned breeds... and, more importantly, it's often breeds that aren't banned which present a problem - https://www.rspca.org.uk/getinvolved/campaign/bsl
The reality is that you cannot responsibly own something if you can't own it in the first place... and you can't only ban certain things, as the problem element will just move on to another and cause the same troubles with those instead.
Again totally missing the point, if a chihuahua behaves aggressively it simply isn't as capable of doing the level of damage of a bull terrier.
Yeah, sure, guncrime is rampant in the UK just like in US cities...
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,488
And a bull terrier isn't capable of doing anywhere near as much damage as many other dogs. What's your point?
That's a very wild and throwaway strawman argument, especially for you - Are you having a bad day or something? Boyfriend left you? Favourite contestant got voted off Love Island?
But as it happens:
Gun crime rising in two-thirds of police force areas in England and Wales
Exclusive: analysis reveals firearms offences have increased in 29 out of 43 forces over past decade
www.theguardian.com
Olivia Pratt-Korbel: police issue warning about ‘battlefield weaponry’ on streets
Merseyside gangs using submachine guns capable of firing 850 rounds a minute, say officers
www.theguardian.com
That bull terrier type dogs cause a disproportionate number of deaths and there is no good reason for them to exist.
What straw man argument? Gun crime rising in the UK still isn't anywhere near equivalent to the UK.
Should we just let people buy guns and have a social media campaign regarding them? You don't think that may lead to more gun violence? Or is it perhaps better to restrict firearm ownership?
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,488
Plenty of other dogs cause not only deaths, but more often life-changing injuries and damage, yet often go unreported or recorded in statistics, which skews the disproportion.
Why do you have a bee in your bonnet about this breed? Are there others you want banned, as well, and if so, why?
US vs UK was your bleat, and no I never made such an argument. It is therefore as much a strawman as your subseqent bleat about social media campaigns and gun ownership.
If you want to address the point I did make, it was that bans did not impact the UK availability of guns through the existing illegal channels.
It is better to cultivate within society a universal revulsion for people who behave irresponsibly, be that with guns, dogs, cars or whatever. You want people so afraid of how their peers and neighbours will react, that they do not stray into such behaviour in the first place.
Social stigma is one of the strongest crime deterrents within societies.
[citation needed]
Also, I didn't claim you did mention the US, I brought them up as an example, you don't seem to understand what a straw man argument is!
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,488
My point was nothing to do with the volume of gun crimes. You brought up an irrelevant argument that misrepresented my point - Strawman.
A look at the incidence and risk factors for dog bites in unincorporated Harris County, Texas, USA - PMC
This study examined the incidence, demographic predictors, and map patterns of dog bites to humans in unincorporated Harris County, Texas, USA. Dog bites reported to Harris County Veterinary Public Health (HCVPH) between January 1, 2013, and ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
"One limitation lies in the source of data. Data from official reports (rather than survey-based) are likely both underreported and incompletely reported. Because reporting of bites is mandated by law, it is probable that bites may disproportionately come from medical professionals, who are likely to care for more severe bites. It is likely that minor bites and victim-owned bites are underreported, as well. Therefore, this data may have potentially underestimated the true incidence of bites, as well as overestimated the incidence of severe bites".
"This study suggests that the real burden of dog bites is considerably larger than those estimated from hospital records. Further, many bites do not require medical treatment and hospital-based bite data are not representative of bites within the wider population. Victim personality requires further investigation and potential consideration in the design of bite prevention schemes."
10 Dog Bite Statistics You NEED To Know!
The subject of dog bites is often quite contentious.
www.k9ofmine.com
"Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs".
"One limitation lies in the source of data. Data from official reports (rather than survey-based) are likely both underreported and incompletely reported. Because reporting of bites is mandated by law, it is probable that bites may disproportionately come from medical professionals, who are likely to care for more severe bites. It is likely that minor bites and victim-owned bites are underreported, as well. Therefore, this data may have potentially underestimated the true incidence of bites, as well as overestimated the incidence of severe bites".A look at the incidence and risk factors for dog bites in unincorporated Harris County, Texas, USA - PMC
This study examined the incidence, demographic predictors, and map patterns of dog bites to humans in unincorporated Harris County, Texas, USA. Dog bites reported to Harris County Veterinary Public Health (HCVPH) between January 1, 2013, and ...
The above refers to minor bites going underreported, which makes much more sense than what you claimed here:
So as per the other dogs are aggressive argument it's kinda moot... sure a chihuahua might well be more aggressive and the bites may well go underreported but I don't really care about them.
I care about the bites that are serious enough to land people in hospital and/or kill them... you know, the ones that are reported!
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,488
And if you read all the links in their entirety, you'll see the many reasons why bites of all severities, excluding death for obvious reasons, go unreported... as well as reasons why the disproportionate stats on your headline breeds are erroneous.
Is there anything, in particular, you want to highlight as you've kinda shown the opposite so far re: what you claimed?
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,488
What, you can't read for yourself now, or are the quotes about incomplete and under-reporting given above not good enough for you?
The latter, you've just totally undermined the claim you made.
Here's another recent case:
www.mirror.co.uk
hmmm
I mean other breeds might well bite too and because those other cases are less severe or don't require medical treatment they go under-reported but that's just supporting my argument further - these cases with bull terrier types are reported because they're severe or indeed because sadly they result in deaths.
I reckon that family would now much prefer to have had say a pug that turned out to be aggressive and nipped the toddler than that pitbull cross!
Girl loses smile after family's rescue pup becomes a 'man-eater' within 24 hours
WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES. Rebekka Bolline said three-year-old daughter Emily was delighted when the family adopted a rescue puppy but within 24 hours the new pet savagely attacked the child
www.mirror.co.uk
hmmm
I mean other breeds might well bite too and because those other cases are less severe or don't require medical treatment they go under-reported but that's just supporting my argument further - these cases with bull terrier types are reported because they're severe or indeed because sadly they result in deaths.
I reckon that family would now much prefer to have had say a pug that turned out to be aggressive and nipped the toddler than that pitbull cross!
Don't think I'd ever get a three year old dog with a child <10 years old, sadly would have to be a pup to minimise the risk from a dogs unknown boundaries which is sad for the shelter dogs that have marginal chance of ever having a decent home.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
Where I live people are really stupid when it comes to dogs. Public park n they think it’s funny to let dogs attack the ducks n swans n other animals.
It’s a joke n dog owners that let their dogs off the lead except on a large field need hanging. They are a nuisance.
It’s a joke n dog owners that let their dogs off the lead except on a large field need hanging. They are a nuisance.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
Hunger Games - I would watch that.