Dangerous dogs

[Araneus]

I just spotted this nice piece of ignorance reported on the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6224009.stm)



Out of their four dogs, two were confirmed pit bull and two weren't. Those two dogs are being brought in.

"The vast majority that we have checked are from a family background. They have children. It is reassuring for them that they don't have a dog that at any time could turn on them."


Any dog owner will tell you that it is not the breed that causes a dog to suddenly become aggressive, it is the way it the dog has been handled or trained. This "dog warden" is not only perpetuating misinformation but distracting people from the real issue, which is that people keep dogs without knowing their history or being able to look after them properly.

Ellie Lawrenson did not die because that dog was a "pit bull", she died because the dog was not properly trained and had a history of aggression which was ignored by the owner. What are the chances that we will see yet more stupid "ban something, anything!" legislation from the government in response to this tragedy that makes no attempt to fix the real problem?

(Disclaimer: I have never owned a dog).

[vbloke]

You'd have to look at how much of this furore is generated by the media though - similar to the whole paedophile controversy of a few years ago.

[Araneus]

You'd have to look at how much of this furore is generated by the media though - similar to the whole paedophile controversy of a few years ago.

It's all generated by the media - stupid sensationalist tabloids influencing a knee-jerk populist government. It's the same story every time: child killed by pit bull -> "ban pit-bulls". Children killed by target pistol shooter -> "ban target pistols". Woman killed by sexual fetishist -> "ban pornography".

Ironically, the only time when the government actually ignores the popular opinion is when the popular opinion is actually sensible (Iraq). Do they occupy some bizarre inverse reality, where informed expert opinion is discarded but ignorant public hysteria has to be obeyed?

[tkingdoll]

I saw the same sentence and had the same reaction. Totally stupid thing to say. Any dog can turn you, whether pitbull or not.

Seriously, she really thinks that only pitbulls attack people? This from the professionals, too. Hey, wasn't it Rottweillers that killed that baby recently?

Although, there's another quote in the same article about how a properly-trained pitbull is no more dangerous than a Jack Russell, which I also found to be stupid. It's highly unlikely a Jack Russell could tear your throat out, and it ain't too hard to throw one off if they try. Ho hum.

But, is there an issue simply because the type of dogs which are more likely to be dangerous are often owned by the type of people least likely to train them properly? Anecdotally, I would say it seems that way. I have certainly observed that ownership of these type of dog seems to be mostly among young men who which to promote an air of danger about themselves. No-one gets a pitbull without knowing of its reputation, particularly as its not lawful to breed in the first place. I suspect that many people buy them precisely because they are 'dangerous' - they act as guard dogs and boost image.

[Araneus]

Although, there's another quote in the same article about how a properly-trained pitbull is no more dangerous than a Jack Russell, which I also found to be stupid. It's highly unlikely a Jack Russell could tear your throat out, and it ain't too hard to throw one off if they try. Ho hum.

I guess by "dangerous" they are referring to the likelihood of an attack, not the severity.


But, is there an issue simply because the type of dogs which are more likely to be dangerous are often owned by the type of people least likely to train them properly? Anecdotally, I would say it seems that way. I have certainly observed that ownership of these type of dog seems to be mostly among young men who which to promote an air of danger about themselves. No-one gets a pitbull without knowing of its reputation, particularly as its not lawful to breed in the first place. I suspect that many people buy them precisely because they are 'dangerous' - they act as guard dogs and boost image.

Yes, I think that is the major problem. Pitbulls, Rottweilers etc have a "mean" image which causes them to appeal to the sort of macho man who is unlikely to train any dog properly.

[Admin]

Ellie Lawrenson did not die because that dog was a "pit bull"

I would say that she did die because it was a Pit Bull. Or at least one of those breeds classed as 'dangerous' because they have both the temperament and physical capability to kill.

All of these types of dog are potential killers and I can't see how they are suitable as family pets; and remember, in this case it was the dog of a relative that killed: not the family's own pet.

If people are stupid enough to keep these dogs as pets then it is guaranteed that more maiming and death will occur in the future. The potential will always be there.

I don't see this as analogous to weapons etc. People use weapons; dogs act of their own volition and if they have the potential to turn violent then all it takes is the required trigger.

I'd support a ban on the ownership of these animals.

[Ginger Rogers]

Yes, certain breeds are bred exactly for their aggression and whether you like it or not they ARE more prone to aggression than other breeds no matter how they're trained or not.
Never mind banning keeping them, they should never have been bred in the first place.

Rottweilers are another matter, they're powerful strong willed dogs, I don't think they're on a level with a pit bull but I don't think they should be kept as family pets

Oh and in fact I also think that yes any dog can turn you just don't know and personally I wouldn't have any dog around a young child unless I was there watching (this is where all the dog owners start getting defensive and saying their dog would NEVER harm a child blah blah - well I say this -are you psychic? can you read your dog's mind? do you know exactly how your dog is going to act at any given time?? NO!)
I love dogs (much more than children, lol) but I wouldn't have let a dog around a small toddler or baby unsupervised.

*jumps off soap box...

[Cuddles]

Although, there's another quote in the same article about how a properly-trained pitbull is no more dangerous than a Jack Russell, which I also found to be stupid. It's highly unlikely a Jack Russell could tear your throat out, and it ain't too hard to throw one off if they try. Ho hum.

While there is some difference between dogs in terms of aggression, I think this is definately the most important point. The most aggressive dogs I've met have all been nasty little yapping rats, but if you give them a good kick they go flying across the road, whereas kicking a pitbull results in your leg being bitten off.

[Araneus]

Yes, certain breeds are bred exactly for their aggression and whether you like it or not they ARE more prone to aggression than other breeds no matter how they're trained or not.

That may very well be true, but there is still no excuse for the sort of irresponsible implication in the original quote that removing one or two specific breeds somehow nullifies any chance of dog attack. It may reduce the risk, but it doesn't solve the problem.


Oh and in fact I also think that yes any dog can turn you just don't know and personally I wouldn't have any dog around a young child unless I was there watching (this is where all the dog owners start getting defensive and saying their dog would NEVER harm a child blah blah - well I say this -are you psychic? can you read your dog's mind? do you know exactly how your dog is going to act at any given time?? NO!)
I love dogs (much more than children, lol) but I wouldn't have let a dog around a small toddler or baby unsupervised.

I agree. People need to start taking some responsibility for the environment they provide for their children, and leaving them alone with any breed of dog that can inflict harm is just stupid.

[Nettles]

I don't know what proportion of people posting to the thread are parents, but if I had a dog in my house I couldn't avoid leaving it alone with my daughters.

An old friend of mine has a rottweiler (he's had two) ... he says they're hard on furniture and knicknacks but (well-trained) not a problem with his children. He used to have a Staffordshire (he makes a point of having sweetie dogs from breeds with bad reputations), but lost it to parvo virus.

The thing about pit bulls that's an especial problem is their combination of a lot of muscle and bite pressure with that terrier head-shaking movement (or so my friend the dangerous-dog-owner tells me): instead of just biting, they hold on and shake whatever they're holding like a rat.

I do think that there are a lot of dangerous dog owners.

[tkingdoll]

There are also a lot of dangerous parents :(

Bring back children licences!

On that subject, does anyone know why dog licences were stopped?

[kath23]

one know why dog licences were stopped?


Because they were so inexpensive it cost considerably more to administer than they were getting back from it, I've heard.

[Araneus]

There are also a lot of dangerous parents :( Bring back children licences!

You might jest, but I don't think that is at all a bad idea. A child is a human being, not a fashion accessory, and the idea that having a child is a "right" which anybody can exercise -- even if they are manifestly incapable of looking after that child properly -- is morally reprehensible in my view.

How to implement such a thing is of course a much harder problem. I certainly wouldn't trust this government to exercise any more control over people's private lives than they already try to do.

[Ginger Rogers]

There are also a lot of dangerous parents :( Bring back children licences!

You might jest, but I don't think that is at all a bad idea. A child is a human being, not a fashion accessory, and the idea that having a child is a "right" which anybody can exercise -- even if they are manifestly incapable of looking after that child properly -- is morally reprehensible in my view.

How to implement such a thing is of course a much harder problem. I certainly wouldn't trust this government to exercise any more control over people's private lives than they already try to do.


by heck do I agree or what. :D some folk absolutely shouldn't be allowed to have children!!

[Admin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6522105.stm

The grandmother has been charged with manslaughter and the owner with possessing a dangerous dog.

It's good to see that these ignorant people are at least to be held accountable for their stupidity.

It's a tough lesson to learn - I just wonder how many people actually will learn from it though.

[tkingdoll]

I was quite surprised to see this charge - although there's also a drugs charge so perhaps she was under the influence at the time of looking after the child, which makes a big difference.

I am glad that she is being made to face the consequences of her actions, but as it wasn't her dog, it's interesting to see that the police think they can make this charge stick. I wonder how much of it is as a warning/example/scapegoat for the growing trend in dangerous dog ownership?

I need more information about the specific circumstances but at the moment something doesn't quite fit. I suspect this is more about the grandmother's own condition at the time and therefore her ability to supervise/intervene than the dog, but I'm not a lawyer!

I'll await further info before commenting further.

[Admin]

I'll await further info before commenting further.


Probably very wise. ;)

I just hate to see people (like the little girl who was killed here) suffer the consequences of stupidity and irrationality.

One can get a bit emotional you know! ???

[Jocky]

there's another quote in the same article about how a properly-trained pitbull is no more dangerous than a Jack Russell, which I also found to be stupid. It's highly unlikely a Jack Russell could tear your throat out, and it ain't too hard to throw one off if they try.

It's pretty hard to throw off even a small dog a Jack Russell if you're aged 5 :'( However that is not to say that one should be banned from keeping Jack Russells in the same house as small children, of course. That would be a disproportionate response to a very small risk.


I don't know what proportion of people posting to the thread are parents, but if I had a dog in my house I couldn't avoid leaving it alone with my daughters

This is an inevitable dilemma of parenting, especially when you're on your own and there are other things which have to be done - you cannot be in two places at once.

Risk can never be entirely eliminated, of course - but our risk-averse litigious society, informed as it is by populist tabloids motivated solely by circulation figures, seems unwilling to accept this obvious fact. It is a matter of risk management, and of course parents have to do this all the time.

On one hand, the dog might turn on the kids - but on the other hand, if you don't leave the room to cook tea then the kids will not be properly fed, and they will not get a proper chance to build up a relationship with the dog. Also, if the dog did turn nasty you would hear it and be there in seconds, before a nasty incident had time to escalate into a tragedy.

The issue is not the breed of the dog - it is competent risk management on the part of the parent/guardian. The difficult task facing the Police with incidents like this is to establish whether it was simply a one-in-a-million piece of tragically bad luck, or whether they can prove that avoidable negligence contributed to increasing the risk to a significant degree.


On a different topic, I suspect that there is no hard and fast fact-based way of discriminating between breeds - whether a given animal is classifiable as, say, a "pit bull" or not is just a matter of a dog expert's opinion. I don't know enough about dogs to be certain - does anybody know if this is in fact the case?

[Mongrel]

On a different topic, I suspect that there is no hard and fast fact-based way of discriminating between breeds - whether a given animal is classifiable as, say, a "pit bull" or not is just a matter of a dog expert's opinion. I don't know enough about dogs to be certain - does anybody know if this is in fact the case?


Looks to be a bit iffy identity wise, no solid rules and conflicting standards(source (http://www.realpitbull.com/id.html)) which does seem to be unusual.

Most dogs have very strict standards about what is or isn't a particular breed (an example (http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/57)) but of course cross breeds confuse the issue a lot.

[Araneus]

That's one of the major problems with such legislation, they are trying to impose a binary categorisation ("dangerous" versus "non-dangerous") on something which is fundamentally not binary.

[CatWoman]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1260173,00.html

Poor little girl :'( Why people have to own these sorts of dogs is beyond me. Having a dog like that anywhere near a child is a time bomb waiting to go off.

I do hope people learn from this.

[Admin]

Sadly, I don't think anyone learns from it. You see, other owners' pit-bull terriers wouldn't harm a fly ::) - just listen to how often that puerile argument gets trotted out.

Self-delusion and pig-ignorance will make sure to that this happens again.

On a related note: this story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/6545043.stm) is another one where drugs and stupidity combined to end up in the needless death of a child.

I mean, giving a child methadone to keep it quiet.

You know, I've been a skeptic for quite a while now and even though I think I've seen human stupidity in all its glory, I still get amazed and flabbergasted by the beliefs and actions of some people. Unfortunately, the victims of stupidity are not necessarily the idiots themselves.

[CatWoman]

Well, I have a labrador and although they are supposed to be family friendly, I am not daft enough to think that she will never harm a fly. When she was ill, she was very touchy. Beware a female in a mood ;D

These idiots get these dogs as status symbols. They have no intention of them being loving family pets, they are not bred as such. Do they care about the temperament of the dog's mother and father? Obviously not, unless it is the more aggressive the better. These dogs are incredibly loyal to their owners so although they may appear to be completely trustworthy, if their owner is not there, they will protect their own space to the death if necessary.

I heard about that Methadone case briefly on the radio this morning but I didn't have time to follow it up. That is so tragic - yet another completely innocent child's life wiped off the face of the earth through parents stupidity.