Another Dog Biting a Child

[CannyFifer]

2 vicious attacks this week in Scotland(probably a lot more unreported) with children being mauled by dogs. I have a Lab myself and grew up with dogs but some of the breeds on the streets today are killers. It's every other week now a kid is attacked and it's time something was done about it. Anyone agree we need better laws of ownership.

 

[viscount17]

start with mandatory licensing and tagging - and not at 7/6 either!

 

[medwayjon]

Its not the breed of dogs its the owners bringing out the worst in the particular animal.

Certain dogs have fighting, hunting or aggressively defensive instincts and when these instincts are allowed to surface and develop due to the animals treatment it is a dangerous thing.

The majority of staff-owners and rottie-owners round here are chav cretins who swig SuperT all day and walk around with these dogs on bits of rope all day, keep them hungry and treat them like crap. No wonder they turn out aggressive.

The other thing I have heard of a lot is where these young kids arent supervised closely with the animal. How many kids get bit because they are jumping about on the dogs, poking them in the eye, whacking them in the plums, thumping them and generally peeing the dog right off. In these circumstances it isnt the dog to blame but the parents or whoever who allow their kids to torment the animal as they please.

If you ask me, the most viscious and spiteful dog of all is the Jack Russell, one took a lump out of my ankle once and the owner went balistic at me for booting it. Like it was my fault.

 

[CliveW]

What ever happened to the Dangerous Dog Act?
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910065_en_1.htm

 

[HomerJSimpson]

No one has got the balls to implement it properly. I agree with MWJ that in a lot (not all) of cases the kids are left to antagonise the dog and it only behaves naturally when frightened or hurt. I also agree that there are way too many chavtastic dog owners who are happy to sponge off the state but can still afford nothing more than a fashion accesory (they never look after their dog properly) to flaunt. Bracknell, Slough and Reading are full of them at any time of day and night.

 

[Fyldewhite]

Firstly, any dog can be dangerous. However, removing the pitt bull types that are largely owned by social degenerates as some sort of estate status symbol would be a very big move in the right direction.

Licenses won't work and will penalise the vast majority of good dog owners. 90% of the problem dogs are owned by the same people who don't tax or insure their cars and basically have no regard for the law at all.

Apologies to any responsible pitt bull type owners on here but sometimes the greater good is key (eg gun laws etc).

 

[Tommo21]

start with mandatory licensing and tagging - and not at 7/6 either!

I'll go along with that, the good owners will be fine with that I'll bet. All dogs should have a tag with a number connected to that owner and the licensing. Certain breeds of dogs should be on a leash at all times...no messing.

I'm still sick of the odd owner who says " it's okay it wont bite" I hate moving out the road for a dog or it's owner.

 

[freddielong]

Make dog owners responsible for the dogs crimes if a dog bites someone a GBH charge dog kills someone murder its simple if they dont like it they dont have a dog

 

[The_LHC]

Firstly, any dog can be dangerous. However, removing the pitt bull types that are largely owned by social degenerates as some sort of estate status symbol would be a very big move in the right direction.

Licenses won't work and will penalise the vast majority of good dog owners. 90% of the problem dogs are owned by the same people who don't tax or insure their cars and basically have no regard for the law at all.

In what why will they "penalise" good owners? If you're a good, responsible owner you won't mind getting a license, dogs aren't cheap, so the cost of the license won't be an issue. Then, if someone is found with a dog who doesn't have a license the dog is removed from them, it's pretty simple.

Apologies to any responsible pitt bull type owners

There's no such thing, Pitbulls are illegal in this country, I hope you're not getting confused with Staffordshire Bull Terriers or English Bull Terriers as they aren't the same thing at all. Staffs in particular are suggested as a good dog to have around children as they have a very high pain threshold and won't mind a little rough and tumble. They were once called the nursemaid dog as the were carried too and from fights in prams, usually hidden under the child's blankets.

on here but sometimes the greater good is key (eg gun laws etc).

Hmm, I wouldn't exactly hold the gun laws up as something that's worked for the greater good, most gun massacres are carried out with legal guns in this country. It's not the gun or the dog that's the problem, it's the person holding on to it.

And before anyone asks, for the record I own neither a gun nor a dog, I have no need for the former and I'm not at home enough during the day to have the latter, so from that point of view I'm probably more responsible that a lot of dog owners.

Mind you if you can train them to find golf balls you'll turn a tidy profit, chap I used to play with at RND had a spaniel that would sniff them out, he used to recover up to 400 balls a week (RND is common land, anyone can go on there, just in case anyone was wondering, just don't frighten the sheep or horses...)!

 

[Fyldewhite]

I know pitt bulls are illegal. That's why I said "pitt bull type". It's a term commonly used in news bulletins detailing how the latest in a long line of 3 year olds has been scarred for life or worse. I think most people reading my post will know exactly what I mean. The ugly dogs with jaws like man traps, harnessed up and paraded around by people with the IQ of some kind of pond life. It seems to me that a significant proportion of "incidents" seem to involve dogs like this and people like this. They are bred and trained for aggression and are dangerous - full stop.

My point about licences is that regulation doesn't work. These people will flout the law and children will continue to be harmed while the politicians say they have taken "action". It's great in theory but there will not be the will or more importantly the money to follow it through with proper enforcement (like so many laws). Result - 99% of dog owners pay money to government and nothing improves. Cynical I know but it's hard not to be really.

As for gun laws.... compare the UK to the USA.

 

[Jabba]

As for gun laws.... compare the UK to the USA.

[/QUOTE]

Licences mean nothing. A friend of mine is a social worker and will tell you that you can hire a handgun from the local estate for £50 plus £5 per round of ammo ( returnable for unsued bullets). Giving a minimum sentence of 10 years per illegally held gun would be more of a deterrent than changing the licensing laws.

I own two Staffie bitches (both neutered) and bought them because the Kennel Club recommend them as an ideal family dog. I can honestly say they have been wonderful pets, have never molested any human or dog and have never shown any sign of agression to any human being.

 

[The_LHC]

I know pitt bulls are illegal. That's why I said "pitt bull type". It's a term commonly used in news bulletins detailing how the latest in a long line of 3 year olds has been scarred for life or worse.

Several problems with this, just because newspapers inaccurately report things doesn't make it ok for us to do so, secondly, the latest incident involved Rottweilers, which are nothing like any bull terrier "type", lastly, Pitbulls (at least look at how I've spelt it, even if you aren't going to listen to the point) are a specific breed, illegal in this country, therefore ownership is in itself, irresponsible, other Bull Terrier breeds are perfectly legal and perfectly capable of being owned responsibly and those responsible owners would be rightly upset at being accused of owning a Pitbull and would, again rightly, berate you for not knowing the difference. In fact I'd argue that if you can't tell the difference you're in no position to comment on the subject.

I think most people reading my post will know exactly what I mean.

No, they'll make the same inaccurate assumptions that you're making.

The ugly dogs with jaws like man traps,

That would be a Bulldog, you certainly couldn't call any Staffie ugly, they're lovely looking dogs. English Bull Terriers are ugly, imo, but not in that way, more in the way that they look like and egg with eyes. A bit like Tamara Beckwith...

harnessed up and paraded around by people with the IQ of some kind of pond life. It seems to me that a significant proportion of "incidents" seem to involve dogs like this and people like this.

And there you hit the nail on the head, it's not the dog, it's the owner.

They are bred and trained for aggression and are dangerous - full stop.

No, most of them aren't trained full stop and are ill-treated, that would make anybody aggressive, again the problem lies with the owner.

My point about licences is that regulation doesn't work. These people will flout the law and children will continue to be harmed while the politicians say they have taken "action". It's great in theory but there will not be the will or more importantly the money to follow it through with proper enforcement (like so many laws). Result - 99% of dog owners pay money to government and nothing improves. Cynical I know but it's hard not to be really.

Well the figures seem to show that dog attacks have increased since the previous license was withdrawn, so that would suggest it does have some effect.

As for gun laws.... compare the UK to the USA.

Why? We're two completely different cultures with entirely different attitudes to weapons, any such comparison is meaningless, all you can usefully do is compare Britain now with Britain pre-gun laws.

 

[Fyldewhite]

At least we agree it's the owners then but the argument against removal of problem breeds is the same as "it's not guns that kills people, it's people that kills people". A bollocks argument IMHO. Remove the breeds that attract the halfwits who want them just to look "hard" and a significant part of the problem goes away. Yes there are other dogs that attack and I'm not suggesting for one minute that this would irradicate the problem. But it might, just might, save the lives of a few children.

None of it will happen though so let's save our breath on the subject eh?

 

[viscount17]

My point about licences is that regulation doesn't work. These people will flout the law and children will continue to be harmed while the politicians say they have taken "action". It's great in theory but there will not be the will or more importantly the money to follow it through with proper enforcement (like so many laws). Result - 99% of dog owners pay money to government and nothing improves. Cynical I know but it's hard not to be really.

Licenses can work - if you police them properly.
This does not mean giving the police the job of checking dog (and cat! filthy ------ things) licenses, and another excuse not to the do the job they're paid for.
That can be done by Council Wardens - at no cost and some profit to the council (offset council tax?). Wardens funded from the fines - % to the warden, % to the council. Mostly they would need a camera, tag reader, a net and a van with a cage.
Minimum £1000 for permitting a dog to foul a play area.

and I've owned a gun and a dog and two cats.