Dangerous dogs?

PJ87

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Apr 1, 2016
Messages
20,082
Location
Havering
Visit site
Statistically, you are 3 times more likely to drown in your bathtub (in your own home) than to be killed by a dog.
Ban baths?

Yet almost everyone has a bathtub and doesn't die

However these dogs (this breed) are responsible for 50% of the deaths by dogs in the UK

So it would suggest the breed is dangerous

They account for 1% of all dogs .. so 1% is responsible for 50% of deaths .. thankfully they are being banned so more of the vicious things don't appear


Making the case for the ban after some animal charities opposed it, a legal expert, Dr Lawrence Newport, described the breed as “uniquely dangerous”.

“This dog breed is responsible for over 70% of all deaths to dogs since 2021; it’s responsible for nearly 50% of all attacks on both humans and other dogs. In one week in July this year, one dog a day was killed by an American bully,” he said.
 

Pin-seeker

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
14,376
Visit site
Yet almost everyone has a bathtub and doesn't die

However these dogs (this breed) are responsible for 50% of the deaths by dogs in the UK

So it would suggest the breed is dangerous

They account for 1% of all dogs .. so 1% is responsible for 50% of deaths .. thankfully they are being banned so more of the vicious things don't appear


Making the case for the ban after some animal charities opposed it, a legal expert, Dr Lawrence Newport, described the breed as “uniquely dangerous”.

“This dog breed is responsible for over 70% of all deaths to dogs since 2021; it’s responsible for nearly 50% of all attacks on both humans and other dogs. In one week in July this year, one dog a day was killed by an American bully,” he said.
I’m not disagreeing with you.
But don’t take everything you read as gospel.
And using % can be misleading.
If 1 attack happens then that breed is responsible for 100%.
 

PJ87

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Apr 1, 2016
Messages
20,082
Location
Havering
Visit site
I’m not disagreeing with you.
But don’t take everything you read as gospel.
And using % can be misleading.
If 1 attack happens then that breed is responsible for 100%.

There is zero positives of this breed though.

They were originally bred for dog fighting

It's one of the few times I've agreed with this government in banning them.
 

AmandaJR

Money List Winner
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
12,392
Location
Cambs
Visit site
Works for me ,but not all owners are like you.

But it remains the case that those calling for muzzling and leashing for ALL dogs are punishing the huge majority for the tiny minority. If that were the case in life and the law we'd all suffer. Car accidents and deaths caused by bad drivers...injuries and deaths caused by sport...injuries and deaths caused by bad people...and on and on. We don't live in a society (thankfully) where everyone suffers because some people are pratts.
 

clubchamp98

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
16,465
Location
Liverpool
Visit site
But it remains the case that those calling for muzzling and leashing for ALL dogs are punishing the huge majority for the tiny minority. If that were the case in life and the law we'd all suffer. Car accidents and deaths caused by bad drivers...injuries and deaths caused by sport...injuries and deaths caused by bad people...and on and on. We don't live in a society (thankfully) where everyone suffers because some people are pratts.
Speed limits are changing to save lives so that’s not a valid argument anymore.

The dangerous dog act clearly isn’t working, so something needs to change.
Yes that will impact responsible owners but that happens all the time as with speed limits.

If it saves one life that’s enough.

I am a bit biased I admit as I am very scared of dogs.
I have crossed the road or turned around out of a shop because there are dogs there.
But some owners just let their dogs approach me even when I ask them to keep them away.
 

patricks148

Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
24,555
Location
Highlands
Visit site
My mail problems with the whole banning thing, is its not a recognised breed as such and who's going to enforce it. Police already stretched and can't investigate or act on a lot of crimes as it is. Our council don't even have a dog warden for Inverness.
 

Jamesbrown

Head Pro
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
1,841
Visit site
All depends on a dogs upbringing, training and experiences.

In a nutshell. Dog licenses should be required, appropriate training, unconditional love given and if you look like a chav you shouldn’t be allowed to care for a dog.
(I have the same opinion for having children).

This breed and famously pitbulls and Rottweilers are the poster dogs of unsavoury individuals. Put a dog in the wrong hands and it’ll be a weapon. And when these dogs are owned by this particular demographic you get skewed statistics saying they’re dangerous breeds.
 

Slab

Occasional Tour Caddy
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
11,039
Location
Port Louis
Visit site
Isn’t it weird how the banning/control/public areas for dogs is the same as the banning/control/public areas for smoking… but we may hold polar views for each based on which we participate in... when its exactly the same issue! :unsure:
 

paddyjk

Active member
Banned
Joined
Aug 10, 2023
Messages
228
Visit site
Isn’t it weird how the banning/control/public areas for dogs is the same as the banning/control/public areas for smoking… but we may hold polar views for each based on which we participate in... when its exactly the same issue! :unsure:
I don't understand what you're saying .
 

Lord Tyrion

Money List Winner
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
27,244
Location
Northumberland
Visit site
Isn’t it weird how the banning/control/public areas for dogs is the same as the banning/control/public areas for smoking… but we may hold polar views for each based on which we participate in... when its exactly the same issue! :unsure:
Except it isn't. If anyone breathes in second hand smoke it is damaging. There isn't good smoke and bad smoke.

99.9% of dogs are fine. I'm in Northumberland and most pubs and many cafes here are dog friendly. The dog sits under the table, wags it's tail, all is good. The rogue dogs are rare but sadly certain breeds attract a certain type of person and the combination is toxic. Incidentally, we have miles of beaches up here but the more popular ones have dog exclusion orders on them during summer. I agree with that. If people are sitting on a beach, eating food, little kids playing, then dogs shouldn't be roaming around. There are plenty of walking beaches where your dog can run free without upsetting anyone.
 
D

Deleted member 15344

Guest
Isn’t it weird how the banning/control/public areas for dogs is the same as the banning/control/public areas for smoking… but we may hold polar views for each based on which we participate in... when its exactly the same issue! :unsure:

Sorry but that’s confused me. In what way is it the same issue
 

Tashyboy

Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
18,755
Visit site
This has been discussed quite a lot recently on t’radio and it is clear that there are 2 issues

1 Highly experienced dog trainers vowing never to go near one as the “breed” has an extremely short fuse and their size and power are a lethal combination.

2, The chavvy / gang type owners who thing it’s big and hard to own such a dog,

Put those 2 together and boom recipe for disaster
Not read all of this thread but totally agree with this. But I have a fair bit to add. Banning the dog is again not the answer to a massive problem. Look at the people that have these dogs/ pets. When the Breed is no longer available in the UK, they will move onto another breed. And you can bet your bottom dollar they are already looking for a replacement pet with the same dangerous trait.
Look online at the most Dangerous dog Breeds. I don’t think this banned breed is the worst. Why has it taken a death to ban this breed? Why have other breeds not been banned? For me it’s to little to late and I feel the can has been kicked down the street.
 

Crazyface

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
7,102
Location
Cheshire
Visit site
The RSPCA, SCPCA, Dogs Trust, Battersea, Blue Cross, British Veterinary Association and Kennel Club all disagree with you though.
They should be the experts being consulted, rather than the newspapers pushing the politicians, like they did with the Dangerous Dogs Act.
I'm undecided. Too much media hysteria to be able to form an opinion.
WTHAAAAAA? The facts are these dogs cause major injuries to people when they decide to attack. Granted small dogs attack but they cause the same damage. ANY dog they attacks for no reason, the owners should be MADE to take them for training. If fact I'd make it law that all dogs be trained and a certificate be issed to confirm they are trained!!!
 

Slab

Occasional Tour Caddy
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
11,039
Location
Port Louis
Visit site
I don't understand what you're saying .
Except it isn't. If anyone breathes in second hand smoke it is damaging. There isn't good smoke and bad smoke.

99.9% of dogs are fine. I'm in Northumberland and most pubs and many cafes here are dog friendly. The dog sits under the table, wags it's tail, all is good. The rogue dogs are rare but sadly certain breeds attract a certain type of person and the combination is toxic. Incidentally, we have miles of beaches up here but the more popular ones have dog exclusion orders on them during summer. I agree with that. If people are sitting on a beach, eating food, little kids playing, then dogs shouldn't be roaming around. There are plenty of walking beaches where your dog can run free without upsetting anyone.
Sorry but that’s confused me. In what way is it the same issue

If we participate in/permit one or the other (dog ownership or smoking) there’s a better than fair chance you’ll typically have no problem with your own conduct/activity/belief… but we may hold a negative view of the other subject

Both can be dangerous to other members of the public,
Both at the very least present a risk (however likely) and can be an uncomfortable/unwanted situation for the 3rd party
Both are prohibited & banned in certain public places
Both can be anti-social
Both rely on the human to conduct themselves with consideration for others
Both have a very bad litter problem
Both stink

How anyone can’t see these similarities…

One difference is the smoker is faced with gory pictures/warnings etc with the purchase and I don’t think this applies when buying dogs (maybe it should) ;)
 
D

Deleted member 15344

Guest
If we participate in/permit one or the other (dog ownership or smoking) there’s a better than fair chance you’ll typically have no problem with your own conduct/activity/belief… but we may hold a negative view of the other subject

Both can be dangerous to other members of the public,
Both at the very least present a risk (however likely) and can be an uncomfortable/unwanted situation for the 3rd party
Both are prohibited & banned in certain public places
Both can be anti-social
Both rely on the human to conduct themselves with consideration for others
Both have a very bad litter problem
Both stink

How anyone can’t see these similarities…

One difference is the smoker is faced with gory pictures/warnings etc with the purchase and I don’t think this applies when buying dogs (maybe it should) ;)


There is no comparison when looking at danger


It’s not both “can” be dangerous

Certain dogs “can be dangerous” depending on breed and how they are raised and treated


“All” smoking is proven to be dangerous

All smoking is anti social

It’s a very poor comparison imo

99.9% of dog owners have no issues at all

All smokers cause issues through secondary smoke that even outside can cause issues
 

Slab

Occasional Tour Caddy
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
11,039
Location
Port Louis
Visit site
There is no comparison when looking at danger


It’s not both “can” be dangerous

Certain dogs “can be dangerous” depending on breed and how they are raised and treated


“All” smoking is proven to be dangerous

All smoking is anti social

It’s a very poor comparison imo

99.9% of dog owners have no issues at all

All smokers cause issues through secondary smoke that even outside can cause issues

Sorry i meant to type, can be dangerous to others ... oh wait, I did!

All smoking is not anti-social, (there's even cigar clubs) but it definitely is a problem to certain non-smokers
All smokers don't cause issues through secondary smoke, the 3rd party may also be smoking
 

paddyjk

Active member
Banned
Joined
Aug 10, 2023
Messages
228
Visit site
If we participate in/permit one or the other (dog ownership or smoking) there’s a better than fair chance you’ll typically have no problem with your own conduct/activity/belief… but we may hold a negative view of the other subject

Both can be dangerous to other members of the public,
Both at the very least present a risk (however likely) and can be an uncomfortable/unwanted situation for the 3rd party
Both are prohibited & banned in certain public places
Both can be anti-social
Both rely on the human to conduct themselves with consideration for others
Both have a very bad litter problem
Both stink

How anyone can’t see these similarities…

One difference is the smoker is faced with gory pictures/warnings etc with the purchase and I don’t think this applies when buying dogs (maybe it should) ;)
I'm not sure dogs are banned from many places to be honest. Just seems to be a policy amongst shops. Plenty of dog friendly pubs, cafes, shops etc out there. They are allowed on public transport too. If you spend 2 days a week in a room with a smoker it's going to cause you health issue. Do the Same with my doggos and youre just going to make 2 new friends.
 
Top