Does something need to be done about dogs?

There's a definite trend of chavs and general nasty people having potentially vicious dogs.. Stafies come to mind. And then don't bother to put the effort in to train them properly.

I mean, when was the last time a child got eaten by a golden retriever or a shitszu?

Certain breeds tend to be status symptoms for the lower demographic in society.
 
When a dog kills someone it is generally confiscated and destroyed, it's not just a "raging ball of fur and teeth" only seen for a brief moment and again 2/3rds of recent fatalities (since 2020) have involved "pit bulls" in the US sense of the word.
Oh, so when you or any other average human are having your arm or your face chewed off, you're able to positively identify exact breed? Even in light of those '10 commonly misidentified as pit bull' breeds mentioned earlier, you're absolutely certain?

Assuming you're using UK statistics, the highest annual count of dog-attack fatalities I could find was 9 deaths in 2022... so that's a grand total of six cases that looked roughly like some kind of pit-bull.
In all the years going back to 1981, the highest count in any one year was 6, the mean average fatality count between ONS and DEFRA records was 1.9 per year. The highest single source average was 2.1.
81% of these fatalities occured at home too, so the earlier worry about dangerous dogs being on 'the streets' is even less of a concern.

To put that in perspective, cows kill an average of 6.2 walkers and ramblers per year.
When are we going to ban these bloodthirsty bovine beasts??!!
We don't have to eat meat, as there are plenty of alternatives nowadays, and humans have not yet properly evolved to consume milk products as evidenced by the 65% lactose intolerant world population. Cows bring nothing else to the table, while their farming has massive impacts on the environment.
They have no reason to exist.

Heck, more people die from falling out of trees each year than from dog attacks.
Other studies go further into examining the media's recent bleating headline assertions that dog fatalities are massively increasing, but found (to their seeming disappointment) that there was no such trend.
Not that it will get read, but:



As with the US stats they're a clear outlier, you'll need a better argument than ackchually sometimes they're misidentified to try and explain away those.
James McNally, dubbed Britain's 'dog bite solicitor' and a personal injury claim expert with Slee Blackwell Solicitors, has said he's seen a rise in the number of dog bite claims in recent years.
Mr McNally said: 'Some of the worst injuries we're seeing are by those beloved household pets; Collies, Jack Russells, Huskies"...

"Licences don’t necessarily, by themselves, solve the problem. They don’t necessarily do anything about the behavioural issues"
"We looked at a whole load of literature around dog attacks, held some focus groups, spoke to veterinary professionals, police officers, enforcers in local authorities, and animal behaviour specialists. The main thing that came back was that most of the attacks are probably preventable"
"If you have a dog, and the dog is out of control, it’s not just down to the dog – it’s down to how you relate to the dog."
Angus Nurse, head of criminology and criminal justice at Nottingham Trent University

"Most bites – more than 80% – occur at home, by a dog known to the victim. That’s one of the difficulties – a lot of what’s going on is happening behind closed doors, so to try and understand exactly what was preceding the bite is difficult. It also means the true figure for dog bites is likely to be far higher than the hospital admissions we know about. Below that, you’ve got A&E and minor injury unit attendance, and we don’t know that figure. And then there’s going to be a whole bunch of other people that have been bitten by dogs that will treat themselves"
"With the hospital records, we don’t have any breed information. If we look at other countries where work has been done on that, no country has found that one breed of dog is more likely to cause bites than others"
Dr. John Tulloch, a vet and epidemiologist at the University of Liverpool, who researches dog-related injuries and deaths.

Tulloch has his own studies, but since he's another who advises against breed-specific legislation and instead focusses on humans doing a better job of keeping their dogs, he's probably not worth reading:



The walkers said the owner has recently found out she's pregnant and the dog has changed since then. Also it's 18 months old so possibly maturing in to Adulthood (It's been 'done' though).
It's a well-known behavioural trait in dogs. A lot of dog sites discuss it, as well as a good number of human pregnancy books.
Dogs are creatures of habit, trained and comforted by routine. When that changes it can upset them and their behaviour alters as they try to recalibrate and figure out what to do.

'Dogs have the ability to sniff out changes in the human body, and many have developed impressive skill in detecting cancer, diabetes, and other health conditions in humans. During pregnancy, your hormones shift and are released in different patterns and quantities, and these changes are sure to be noticed by your dog. Every dog reacts differently to their pregnant owner, some become protective, others more aloof, and others may even seem apathetic. Sensing vulnerability, they may become your bodyguard, following closely and even keeping others at a distance.'
 
No - The owner found out she is pregnant.

The human owner is having a baby.

The dog is male.

Ive seen it happen too but with a baby. I have a cocker spaniel and we used to see a pure white Akita, a beautiful dog. He used to play with the Akita from when it was a puppy, running around chasing each other having a great time. The owner had a baby and ever since, whenever our dog goes up to the Akita to play, the Akita gets aggressive and chases him away, I presume because it thinks its protecting the baby. The attitude of the dog completely changed, our dog doesnt even bother now.
 
Last edited:
I just provided you with some recent stats on attacks in the UK??? 2/3rds of the fatalities in the UK since 2020 involved types of dogs that would have come under that pitbull classification in the US. You can click on the link and have a quick scan through the other incidents too.
You're quite right, you did. One Staffie, a Staffie cross and a many other separate breeds, some of which are not recognised in the UK. As I said before the US classification is not relevant to the UK. Looking through that list a lot of the dog owners strike me as scummy and some of them shouldn't have children or own a dog.

I wanted @chrcoluk to provide some data regarding his claim of thousands of Staffie attacks every year which include the non fatal ones too.
 
Last edited:
There's a definite trend of chavs and general nasty people having potentially vicious dogs.. Stafies come to mind. And then don't bother to put the effort in to train them properly.

I mean, when was the last time a child got eaten by a golden retriever or a shitszu?

Certain breeds tend to be status symptoms for the lower demographic in society.

Where I live staffs are out, bully xls are in.

Saw a particularly terrible one last week- docked tail, cropped ears.
 
How would *you* identify the breed if you're dead? Think about what you're replying to.
I *am* thinking - That's why I've been questioning the validity of your stats, since they primarily come from Police and hospital reports that were filled out by people who were not present at the attack.
Even in the main UK stats, there is only occasional mention of the dog breeds being confirmed by experts, while many others are merely described as 'suspected'.

You're quite right, you did. One Staffie, a Staffie cross and a many other separate breeds, some of which are not recognised in the UK. Looking through that list a lot of the dog owners strike me as scummy and some of them shouldn't have children or own a dog.
The narratives behind the UK fatality stats (summaries on Wiki) are quite shocking - Lots of people leaving dogs alone with newborns, infants and toddlers, people not going to hospital for treatment and later dying from septicaemia, people having epileptic attacks and getting mauled by confused dogs, people abusing and neglecting their dogs... surprised to see several Jack Russells on the list.

This one would be funny, if it weren't for the neglect of a dog:

I wanted @chrcoluk to provide some data regarding his claim of thousands of Staffie attacks every year which include the non fatal ones too.
Generally you'll find that the most widely owned breeds also have the highest bite rate. The Kennel Club has previously stated that Labradors bite most often, followed by GSDs, Staffy-types and then Border Collies.
It does seem to vary according to location, though. In 2016 Jack Russell's topped the bite charts in Liverpool, beating Staffy-types and GSDs.
 
The dog walkers (who both have staffies and one used to show staffies) said the owner is a first time dog owner and is a bit nervous and not strict enough with it.

Make of that what you will.

I think this was covered by the dog trainer below that owners who are nervous and pull their dog close when other dogs come near make their dog become nervous and become more protective and aggressive. He actually trained a few dogs like this to become relaxed and none aggressive. It's really worth a watch a few of these to get your head around dog psychology and the dog trainer is great at what he does.

 
It's incredible the number of reactive dogs around at the moment. Was walking Ruby my Sprocker yesterday (on lead) and came up behind a dog on a lead that I hadn't realised had a muzzle on! Other dog goes ballistic, barking, pulling, growling; the owner just repeats 'No' rather than doing anything useful like a 'Leave' command or placing herself in front of her dog. My dog was completely not bothered, carried on our walk, and had a good time chasing sticks (I train her every time we go out, recalls, wait, leave, stay, paw, 'let's put this on' when it's time to go back on lead). Treat every opportunity like a training opportunity basically.
 
It's incredible the number of reactive dogs around at the moment.
'Pandemic puppies', essentially.
Lots of studies, reports, articles etc all basically about how people got dogs for company when forced to stay home, but never gave them proper training or exercise, resulting in very unsocialised dogs. The backstreet breeder market is aboslutley booming, including banned breeds.
 
'Pandemic puppies', essentially.
Lots of studies, reports, articles etc all basically about how people got dogs for company when forced to stay home, but never gave them proper training or exercise, resulting in very unsocialised dogs. The backstreet breeder market is aboslutley booming, including banned breeds.
I agree - train your dog properly. Many people we see have to keep their dog on a lead. This was Max escorting my grandson. No lead required.

sP405pl.jpg
 
Last edited:
I *am* thinking - That's why I've been questioning the validity of your stats, since they primarily come from Police and hospital reports that were filled out by people who were not present at the attack.

They don't need to be present "at the attack" as you say... I mean you were previously talking about a "raging ball of fur and teeth".

You're not thinking this through, in the case of a fatality, the person subjected to the attack is dead! The dog is typically confiscated and the police are not dealing with a "raging ball of fur and teeth" rather they're dealing with a confiscated dog they've got in a crate and will very likely be putting down!

The Kennel Club has previously stated that Labradors bite most often...

And yet when it comes to fatalities we don't see as many from Labradors as we do from bull terrier-type dogs! Strange that...
 
Last edited:
They don't need to be present "at the attack" as you say... I mean you were previously talking about a "raging ball of fur and teeth".
You're not thinking this through, in the case of a fatality, the person subjected to the attack is dead! The dog is typically confiscated and the police are not dealing with a "raging ball of fur and teeth" rather they're dealing with a confiscated dog they've got in a crate and will very likely be putting down!

You seem to be implying that any given individual who survives such an incident would be capable of either perfectly recalling exact details of the dog*, or would be able to exactly identify it's breed, while under the extremely distracting and preoccuying duress and trauma of a physical assault... whereas most people would typically perceive little more than the aforementioned raging ball.
You also seem to be reliant on the assumption that the Police were able to positively identify and locate each 'guilty' dog from the victims' accounts, or that of any other eyewitnesses in the case of a fatality, in spite of earlier reports and studies asserting that at least 40% remained unidentified and the cases unsolved.

*Context - Most attacks on 'the street' are by dogs the victims had never met before.

And yet when it comes to fatalities we don't see as many from Labradors as we do from bull terrier-type dogs! Strange that...
Why is it strange, and what does it have to do with a quote specifically regarding the inclusion of non-fatal attacks?
I think it more strange that you're so hung up on pit-bull types, when GSDs were identified by trauma surgeons as consistently causing more damage to a person, with Labrador, Collie, and Rottweiler closely behind.

As in earlier arguments, you seem to have found yourself one number and are throwing it about for all its worth... You're like a Jack Russell with an unsupervised infant.
Did Grandma go and get stoned again, or did your handler abuse you? Can you show me on this Paw Patrol doll?
 
You seem to be implying that any given individual who survives such an incident would be capable of either perfectly recalling exact details of the dog*

No, again, I was quoting stats on fatalities... you seem to have missed that that is where someone dies.

Your waffle about the person being attacked only seeing a ball of fur and not being able to accurately identify a breed is moot because... well they're dead.

When someone is killed by a dog the police tend to confiscate it and destroy it, they aren't confronted with a ball of fur charging at them when the dog is captured and in a crate, think about what you're responding to here!

You also seem to be reliant on the assumption that the Police were able to positively identify and locate each 'guilty' dog from the victims' accounts, or that of any other eyewitnesses in the case of a fatality, in spite of earlier reports and studies asserting that at least 40% remained unidentified and the cases unsolved.

It isn't an assumption, I referred to specific cases in the UK from 2020 onwards you're just talking nonsense here, those dogs were identified 2/3rd of the incidents involved bull terrier types. Your 40% unidentified claim clearly doesn't apply there.

Just think a bit more about what you're arguing here instead of coming up with weak excuses about the victims not being able to identify the breed which don't even apply to the stats quoted.
 
Last edited:
No, again, I was quoting stats on fatalities... you seem to have missed that that is where someone dies.
Your waffle about the person being attacked only seeing a ball of fur and not being able to accurately identify a breed is moot because... well they're dead.
I've already specified several times now that I'm addressing both injuries and fatalities. The delineation between the two is very clear, as you'll know from seeing phrases like, "or that of any other eyewitnesses in the case of a fatality" - Stop being obtuse... you're not very good at it.

It isn't an assumption, I referred to specific cases in the UK from 2020 onwards you're just talking nonsense here, those dogs were identified 2/3rd of the incidents involved bull terrier types. Your 40% unidentified claim clearly doesn't apply there.
Both sets of stats specify where the Police had experts confirm the breed. It is therefore reasonable to presume that in cases where there is no such mention, the breed was not confirmed.
But prove me wrong - Show me the methods used to confirm the breed in all six...
 
Back
Top Bottom