Shocking...

[Gilly]

The parents of the dead child should rightly have a lot on their conscience.

I'm sure they do but they aren't the dogs usual keepers...

Yeah i heard someone say on the radio that the problem with the dangerous dogs act is that dogs can't read. Therefore it's up to someone who can to teach them what it contains.

 

[Spacky]

I very much doubt it.

o-k.

the dog only did what it's breed does, the dogs are not to blame for behaving like untrained dogs.

what with this "love animals more" thing ?
who is saying that ???

As Gilly said.

any untrained rotty is one step away from doing the same thing, it's a shame we have to kill animals because we abused them.
Don't think that by killing the dog you have solved the problem here...

.

The dog is dead...

 

[bitslice]

As Gilly said.

OK, it just looked like you were refering to me, apologies

The dog is dead...

but nothing has changed to stop this happening again...
people blame the dog
the dog is put down
phew, people think it's all OK again.

and it's NOT ! The dog is NOT the problem.

Stupid people should be held accountable for their abject neglect.
Only then will the chavs think twice about getting one to ponce about with and "look 'ard"

.

 

[Spacky]

OK, it just looked like you were refering to me, apologies


but nothing has changed to stop this happening again...
people blame the dog
the dog is put down
phew, people think it's all OK again.

and it's NOT ! The dog is NOT the problem.

Stupid people should be held accountable for their abject neglect.
Only then will the chavs think twice about getting one to ponce about with and "look 'ard"

.

Child can't be brought back and that dog can't kill again, nothing more to discuss.

 

[Gilly]

Child can't be brought back and that dog can't kill again,
nothing more to discuss.

100% wrong.

Owners can own another dog and mistreat/mistrain it in the same way.

 

[Spacky]

100% wrong.

Owners can own another dog and mistreat/mistrain it in the same way.

100% wrong, dog is dead. That infers everyone I said as being wrong.

Next dog has potential to kill as the next puppy born into the world has.

 

[Gilly]

100% wrong, dog is dead.

I didn't argue that point so how could I be wrong? I didn't even mention the dogs that killed in this instance :/

Next dog has potential to kill as the next puppy born into the world has.

The potential, yes. The odds of a random dog attacking a human and the odds of a dog owned by owners that have failed their pets in such a massive way in the past are very different.

 

[jas72]

REALY?
odd, I've NEVER heard of police dogs doing that EVER, or anything like it.
are you SURE it was a police dog, and not just some alsation owned by a policeman?

Now you mention it i'm not sure LOL

you might be right.

It was a mean mother though... thought I was gonna die...

 

[Spacky]

I didn't argue that point so how could I be wrong? I didn't even mention the dogs that killed in this instance :/


The potential, yes. The odds of a random dog attacking a human and the odds of a dog owned by owners that have failed their pets in such a massive way in the past are very different.

So a wild animal killing a human is based on the sole fact it hasn't been trained correctly or that it is acting on its natural instinct.

 

[kitten_caboodle]

why are you confused?

The point the guy (i think it was the same guy that bitslice was quoting) was making is that how do dogs know what they can and cannot do? Through being taught by someone who has the knowledge of what is acceptable and what isn't is the only way. The dog can't pick up the dangerous dogs act, read it and think 'hhmm So this is how I have to behave'.

Just having the act isn't enough. Having people who understand it and train their dogs accordingly is a necessity otherwise it's just a useless piece of legislation.

 

[Gilly]

So a wild animal killing a human is based on the sole fact it hasn't been trained correctly or that it is acting on its natural instinct.

Think about it. On the one hand you have a properly trained dog, on the other you have a neglected or badly trained dog. Which is more likely to maul/kill a young human?

Its nothing to do with wild animals.

why are you confused?

The point the guy (i think it was the same guy that bitslice was quoting) was making is that how do dogs know what they can and cannot do? Through being taught by someone who has the knowledge of what is acceptable and what isn't is the only way. The dog can't pick up the dangerous dogs act, read it and think 'hhmm So this is how I have to behave'.

Just having the act isn't enough. Having people who understand it and train their dogs accordingly is a necessity otherwise it's just a useless piece of legislation.

It read like you were arguing with the guy quoted who was asking the questions. Now I see you were agreeing with him and adding to his point.

 

[fozzybear]

A question for everyone.

Would you rather breed out Pit Bulls (in US, they are known as the dog to commit the highest percentage of fatal attacks) or sort out their, generally, sub-human scum owners?

Personally, i'd rather sort out the dog owners before we sort out the actual dogs. Humans are more of a danger to dogs than dogs are to humans.

Muzzles should also be made compulsory for certain breeds. If they're muzzled they cannot bite...simple!

Also, parents should take more responsibilty to safeguard their kids from such attacks. I saw a stat (U.S)saying that almost 80% of fatal attacks are on children under 12. Another stat said this:-

The age group with the highest number of fatalities were children under the age of 1 year old; accounting for 19% of the deaths due to dog attack. Over 95% of these fatalities occurred when an infant was left unsupervised with a dog(s).

 

[Spacky]

Think about it. On the one hand you have a properly trained dog, on the other you have a neglected or badly trained dog. Which is more likely to maul/kill a young human?

Its nothing to do with wild animals.

I am thinking about it and have decided that an animal has basic instincts, a dog will eat meat naturally, a dog will hold and guard territory naturally...you can try domesticating a dog but it will still do what it naturally is made to do but in a slightly different format amended to something humans think is acceptable.

A person goes into a an animals terroritory the animal will judge on basic things like size, illness etc (Postie gets attacked, barking etc). An animal that feels threatened will attack an animal that it sees as a weak animal particularly from a carnivore angle, it then will attack mainly for food except in foxes. A dog will want to make his stance and position of power known, pack leader and all that unless his placement in a pack is more of a sub role.

 

[Sweetloaf]

Owners can own another dog and mistreat/mistrain it in the same way.

I'm unsure but that is probably yet to be decided.

All dog owners should have to pass a series of lessons on how to train and look after a dog before being allowed to own one, they should be made aware of the dangers before purchase. A Rotty can be a very dangerous animal and owners should be fully aware of this before they commit themselves. Any old Chav with a bit of spare cash can own a potentially lethal animal, it's quite frankly ridiculous.

 

[Gilly]

I am thinking about it and have decided that an animal has basic instincts, a dog will eat meat naturally, a dog will hold and guard territory naturally...you can try domesticating a dog but it will still do what it naturally is made to do but in a slightly different format amended to something humans think is acceptable.

That depends on the type of dog, the history of it and the way the dog is treated throughout its life.

A dalmation has not been used as an aggressive dog throughout their history AFAIK, and is as safe as dogs get around nippers. The same can't be said for Rottweilers, Dobermans, etc.

Of course there is always a chance, and I wouldn't leave a defenceless baby in the presence of a dog that was unmuzzled or could reach it, but you can't say there's the same chance of a properly trained dalmation as there is a badly trained/treated rotty...

I'm unsure but that is probably yet to be decided.

How do you mean?

 

[Spacky]

That depends on the type of dog, the history of it and the way the dog is treated throughout its life.

A dalmation has not been used as an aggressive dog throughout their history AFAIK, and is as safe as dogs get around nippers. The same can't be said for Rottweilers, Dobermans, etc.

Of course there is always a chance, and I wouldn't leave a defenceless baby in the presence of a dog that was unmuzzled or could reach it, but you can't say there's the same chance of a properly trained dalmation as there is a badly trained/treated rotty...

How do you mean?

On the acceptance that there is an element of chance with a animal around a human I wouldn't leave a dog near a child alone or unsupervised. There are some people that let dogs sleep in their beds with them, then there are some people who let them sleep in a kennel or downstairs. Some dogs are more interested in squeaky balls others in chasing things and barking at birds. That element of character denotes a reason to not leave a dog alone with an infant.

 

[Sweetloaf]

How do you mean?

If the dog owners were found to be at all neglectful or unfit they may be banned from owning dogs ever again. I'm not sure because I'm reading most of this at work and haven't got that much time to check.

Has anything happened to the dog owners?

 

[bitslice]

All dog owners should have to pass a series of lessons on how to train and look after a dog before being allowed to own one

maybe the dog should be tested too, then we'll know if the training is working.

I think there is some law in Germany that relates to whether the dog has show any aggression or not ?

.

 

[Gilly]

On the acceptance that there is an element of chance with a animal around a human I wouldn't leave a dog near a child alone or unsupervised. There are some people that let dogs sleep in their beds with them, then there are some people who let them sleep in a kennel or downstairs. Some dogs are more interested in squeaky balls others in chasing things and barking at birds. That element of character denotes a reason to not leave a dog alone with an infant.

I absolutely agree but there's always going to be a larger element of risk associated with certain breeds.

If the dog owners were found to be at all neglectful or unfit they may be banned from owning dogs ever again. I'm not sure because I'm reading most of this at work and haven't got that much time to check.

Has anything happened to the dog owners?

Not that I've heard, though they might have. I'm not sure there's any way of banning people from owning dogs is there? It doesn't happen enough, I'd be fully behind the requirement for a licence to own certain breeds of dog, and the ability of the police or whoever to revoke that licence where necessary.

 

[Sweetloaf]

I'm not sure there's any way of banning people from owning dogs is there?.

Not exactly sure how it's done, but people can certainly be banned. I'm not sure how extreme the circumstances have to be. In this case however it would seem that the parents of the child didn't actually own the dogs so I'm not sure who would be responsible.