Does something need to be done about dogs?

[StriderX]

It's always a risk having a child/mature dog in the same household as you can never really be sure if the dog is going to become jealous of the lack of attention or the child is going to do something stupid (inevitable really... it's a kid) that makes the dog jump (easily fatal if it's on stairs even if the dog doesn't bite).

 

[Dave2150]

Leaving any animal unattended with a young child is really stupid, child can cry upsetting animal, child can smack or harm animal causing retaliation. Not for one minute. Pet should be in a secure place or in a different room if not supervised.

I 100% agree with you. Problem is that in this day and age, there's a sizeable % of the population that have no common sense and will leave dogs alone with babies/toddlers. Then the dog gets blamed. It's lunacy.

Natural selection being greatly diminished (in regards to the adults with no common sense making it to adulthood) is one of the reasons these people are able to put young ones in these situations.

 

[sidimmu]

So are we finally all agreeing here that the issue is the human owner involved?

Stupid human gets stupid dog.
Stupid human does not train or look after dog in suitable environment.
Stupid human also lets dog roam free around other unknown humans and children that do not know the dog. In other words, suitable protection of others is not provided.
A human is attacked, dog is killed, stupid human owner walks away with a ban on pets for X years which is as useful as a chocolate tea pot.

True deterrent would be to have the owners prosecuted for GBH/manslaughter/murder on behalf of their pet for any serious attacks and deaths.

 

[cheesefest]

Watching Countryfile - there's an increase in dogs attacking livestock in fields, either injuring them or killing them.

The problem has been escalated by first time dog owners getting a dog during lockdown. Many have no clue in controlling their dogs or understand that its best for dog to be on a lead.

 

[cheesefest]

So are we finally all agreeing here that the issue is the human owner involved?

Stupid human gets stupid dog.
Stupid human does not train or look after dog in suitable environment.
Stupid human also lets dog roam free around other unknown humans and children that do not know the dog. In other words, suitable protection of others is not provided.
A human is attacked, dog is killed, stupid human owner walks away with a ban on pets for X years which is as useful as a chocolate tea pot.

True deterrent would be to have the owners prosecuted for GBH/manslaughter/murder on behalf of their pet for any serious attacks and deaths.

Also tougher punishments for neglect of pets. If did that to a child, you get banged up for many years. Get fined a couple hundred quid for an animal.

 

[sidimmu]

Also tougher punishments for neglect of pets. If did that to a child, you get banged up for many years. Get fined a couple hundred quid for an animal.

Cant say I'd argue with that.

I do think we should have licensed breeders and not just anyone and everyone with a dog can go breeding and selling their pups. Can be an inspected industry and controlled suitably.
Owners to be vetted like they would if you were fostering or adopting, verification checks with the breeder to confirm identity and no bans on ownership of animals.

 

[dowie]

So are we finally all agreeing here that the issue is the human owner involved?

IF you think all breeds pose the same risk or can't see the outlier here after stats have been posted then this is a basic numeracy issue tbh. That bad owners are often an issue is even more reason to not want say XL Bullies, this isn't a monocausal thing though, some dogs are inherently more dangerous in terms of their capacity to cause deaths and/or serious injury, being in denial of that is frankly silly.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Yes, children always have psychic abilities with respect to dogs and clearly weren't paying attention if a dog snaps.

Since when are children the legal keepers of a dog?
The owner is responsible for ensuring the dog doesn't cause harm. That includes teaching their human offspring not to **** the dog off, and keeping them from doing something stupid until they are old enough to understand.

Yeah have to disagree with this. Some dogs are more risky than others.

If all dogs have the potential to attack, and even kill, then the risk is the same. Only the likely consequences differ.

True deterrent would be to have the owners prosecuted for GBH/manslaughter/murder on behalf of their pet for any serious attacks and deaths.

No.
An increase in the consequences does nothing to deter people. It never worked when the death penalty was a consequence and it wouldn't have any meaningful impact here or in any other legal capacity.
What deters people is the likelihood of being caught and punished. If they think there's a chance they will get away with it, they'll chance it.

IF you think all breeds pose the same risk or can't see the outlier here after stats have been posted then this is a basic numeracy issue tbh. That bad owners are often an issue is even more reason to not want say XL Bullies, this isn't a monocausal thing though, some dogs are inherently more dangerous in terms of their capacity to cause deaths and/or serious injury, being in denial of that is frankly silly.

There are quite a few dogs with the capacity to cause more damage than those statistical outliers, yet don't rank anywhere near as high on the stats tables.

 

[dowie]

Since when are children the legal keepers of a dog?
The owner is responsible for ensuring the dog doesn't cause harm. That includes teaching their human offspring not to **** the dog off, and keeping them from doing something stupid until they are old enough to understand.

Yes and back in reality **** happens.

There are quite a few dogs with the capacity to cause more damage than those statistical outliers, yet don't rank anywhere near as high on the stats tables.

So what?

 

[ttaskmaster]

Yes and back in reality **** happens.

If you're stupid about it, yes it does and if your kid dies as a result then it's your ******* fault.

So what?

Back at you.
There are plenty of things with the capacity for bad results if people are stupid, yet we aren't banning all those on the basis of what 'might' happen. So what's your point?

 

[dowie]

If you're stupid about it, yes it does and if your kid dies as a result then it's your ******* fault.

So what? That doesn't make it OK. The risk is still there and this type of dog is an outlier.

There are plenty of things with the capacity for bad results if people are stupid, yet we aren't banning all those on the basis of what 'might' happen. So what's your point?

Well no one has suggested we do that ergo why are you bringing up these other breeds you claim have the capacity for "bad results" rather than addressing the issue with the type of dog that actually does cause issues and is an outlier?

 

[£15]

Watching Countryfile - there's an increase in dogs attacking livestock in fields, either injuring them or killing them.

The problem has been escalated by first time dog owners getting a dog during lockdown. Many have no clue in controlling their dogs or understand that its best for dog to be on a lead.

I also think a contributing factor is the number of people getting 'rescue dogs'. Not only have lots of people that have never had a dog before, got a dog, but they've got dogs that frequently come with 'issues' already built-in and they're receiving next to no support or guidance on how to look after or train them.

I've had conversations with several people that tell me once they've given the rescue centre a 'donation' and taken the dog home, they're left to it. Next to no history on the dog. What it's been through. Where it's been. What to expect, or what to do. They're then left out of their depth, don't know what to do with the dog, or whom to turn for advice.

They're riding in on their moral high horse - 'I have a rescue dog. Aren't I good?' - and then proceed to do no work with it and wonder why it's not working out/out of control.

 

[ttaskmaster]

So what? That doesn't make it OK. The risk is still there and this type of dog is an outlier.

I never said it was OK. Just the opposite, actually, hence the response.
Doesn't change the fact that it's the owner's negligence and irresponsibility causing all these problems.

Well no one has suggested we do that ergo why are you bringing up these other breeds you claim have the capacity for "bad results" rather than addressing the issue with the type of dog that actually does cause issues and is an outlier?

Capacity is not a factor, hence questioning why you brought it up in the first place.

I also think a contributing factor is the number of people getting 'rescue dogs'. Not only have lots of people that have never had a dog before, got a dog, but they've got dogs that frequently come with 'issues' already built-in and they're receiving next to no support or guidance on how to look after or train them.
I've had conversations with several people that tell me once they've given the rescue centre a 'donation' and taken the dog home, they're left to it. Next to no history on the dog. What it's been through. Where it's been. What to expect, or what to do. They're then left out of their depth, don't know what to do with the dog, or whom to turn for advice.
They're riding in on their moral high horse - 'I have a rescue dog. Aren't I good?' - and then proceed to do no work with it and wonder why it's not working out/out of control.

Who are you holding to blame, here? The rescue centre for not handing them everything on a plate, or the owners for not getting up off their arses and doing their research on dog ownership, local training classes, etc?

 

[£15]

I never said it was OK. Just the opposite, actually, hence the response.
Doesn't change the fact that it's the owner's negligence and irresponsibility causing all these problems.


Capacity is not a factor, hence questioning why you brought it up in the first place.


Who are you holding to blame, here? The rescue centre for not handing them everything on a plate, or the owners for not getting up off their arses and doing their research on dog ownership, local training classes, etc?

If it's all about blame for you, and everything is so black and white, then I see no point in engaging further with you.

 

[413x]

Since when are children the legal keepers of a dog?
The owner is responsible for ensuring the dog doesn't cause harm. That includes teaching their human offspring not to **** the dog off, and keeping them from doing something stupid until they are old enough to understand.


If all dogs have the potential to attack, and even kill, then the risk is the same. Only the likely consequences differ.


No.
An increase in the consequences does nothing to deter people. It never worked when the death penalty was a consequence and it wouldn't have any meaningful impact here or in any other legal capacity.
What deters people is the likelihood of being caught and punished. If they think there's a chance they will get away with it, they'll chance it.


There are quite a few dogs with the capacity to cause more damage than those statistical outliers, yet don't rank anywhere near as high on the stats tables.

There's much more risk with some breeds than others. There's much more risk with some up bringing than others.

The risk Of serious injury/death is vastly different between different breeds and upbringing

 

[dowie]

Capacity is not a factor, hence questioning why you brought it up in the first place.

I was referring to the obvious outlier here... there is a different risk depending on the type of dog and that is a factor.

Your rather vague claim re: other dogs seems pretty irrelevant here.

 

[ttaskmaster]

If it's all about blame for you, and everything is so black and white, then I see no point in engaging further with you.

It's not about me, but the laws that put it in black and white - In almost all circumstances, the law places sole responsibility for a dog's behaviour on the owner.
Most dog websites have a ton of links to these laws, your responsibilities and numerous resources on how to properly keep your dog and other people safe. Vets can also advise and most rescue centres will have similar resources to which you can be directed.
What more do you want?

I was referring to the obvious outlier here... there is a different risk depending on the type of dog and that is a factor.
Your rather vague claim re: other dogs seems pretty irrelevant here.

A well-raised American-Staffy-XL-Pit-Bully-Terrier-Type has far lower risk than a badly trained Labrador.
Consequence, which you seem to be focused upon, is just one factor of risk.

 

[Felon]

A well-raised American-Staffy-XL-Pit-Bully-Terrier-Type has far lower risk than a badly trained Labrador.
Consequence, which you seem to be focused upon, is just one factor of risk.

Consequences or outcomes, are the most important factor though.

I also don’t agree with what you’re saying - there are between 500k and 1M Labradors in the uk, yet not a single one is implicated in a fatal attack when looking back since 2010, and there are a lot of badly trained ones.

In contrast, the Bully XL is a rare, niche breed - yet they’re currently by a country mile, the worst breed for fatal attacks, in recent years it’s not even close.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Consequences or outcomes, are the most important factor though.

I also don’t agree with what you’re saying - there are between 500k and 1M Labradors in the uk, yet not a single one is implicated in a fatal attack when looking back since 2010, and there are a lot of badly trained ones.

In contrast, the Bully XL is a rare, niche breed - yet they’re currently by a country mile, the worst breed for fatal attacks, in recent years it’s not even close.

Consequences of risk are just possibilities, however likely or unlikely.
Outcomes are indeed the end result, though.

Labradors are very high on the attack statistics, often cited as the most likely to bite based on serious injury claims, and with a bite force of around 230psi it rivals the Doberman, Pit Bull and GSD. That's some serious damage and dangerous enough, without also considering that they're probably the most popular choice for a family dog.
But since the main source of outlier stats here seems to be an American resource, US Labs racked up five kills in 2016-2017.

As mentioned before, other breeds have previously been "the worst for fatal [and non-fatal] attacks by a country mile", yet they've all seen a dramatic drop in statistics over the years and without any of them being banned.

 

[Felon]

As mentioned before, other breeds have previously been "the worst for fatal [and non-fatal] attacks by a country mile", yet they've all seen a dramatic drop in statistics over the years and without any of them being banned.

Previously, the numbers have been much lower, fatal attacks averaged 3.3 per year until 2022, when it shot up to 10.

If you look at 2022, out of those 10 attacks, 5 of them involved a Bully XL.

If you take out the attacks by that breed - then 2022 wouldn’t have been much different than normal, the additional 2 attack increase over the baseline could perhaps be simply down to people having more dogs, after Covid.