Dangerous Dogs

[MischiefMonkey]

I guess everyone here has heard of the poor child in Liverpool that that has been mauled to death by a dog.

I am yet to see a definitive report as to which breed exactly the dog is, but it hasn't stopped the anti-bull breed brigade on certain forums call for tighter controls on Bull Breed dogs.

The Dangerous Dog act 1991 - restricting Pit Bull ownership - didn't stop dog attacks nor the number of Pit Bull Types.

Any dog - including tiny Pomeranians - in the wrong circumstances can kill.

If a sceptical approach to dog attacks is pursued, what is the outcome?

[brianp]

I guess everyone here has heard of the poor child in Liverpool that that has been mauled to death by a dog.

I am yet to see a definitive report as to which breed exactly the dog is, but it hasn't stopped the anti-bull breed brigade on certain forums call for tighter controls on Bull Breed dogs.

The Dangerous Dog act 1991 - restricting Pit Bull ownership - didn't stop dog attacks nor the number of Pit Bull Types.

Any dog - including tiny Pomeranians - in the wrong circumstances can kill.

If a sceptical approach to dog attacks is pursued, what is the outcome?

Oh dear. In the wrong circumstances any dog can kill! So they're as dangerous as guns! In the UK we ban the ownership of guns and if we find any illegally held guns we throw the owner in jail and destroy the weapon. If any dog can kill then perhaps the logical response would be to have a mass cull and declare the ownership of dogs illegal.

But seriously - the fact that Dangerous Dogs Act is widely ignored is not an argument against the Act - it's a black mark against those who are meant to enforce it. Like any Act intended to enhance public safety, it should be enforced vigorously and those caught breakng it should get the maximum penalty - which believe is 6 months in jail and a large fine.

I don't know if there can be a "sceptical approach" to dog attacks, but personally I think that the DDA should be amended so that any dog of any type that bites or otherwise attacks a human should be automatically destroyed and the owner prosecuted. I say this as a former dog owner myself (who would still be a dog owner if his wife didn't prefer cats). If my little mut had bitten anyone - other than a burglar perhaps or in self defence - I would have taken him to the vets myself to have him put down. Much as I loved the little creature, people are of infinitely more importance.

[bruce]

In the UK we ban the ownership of guns

Incorrect.
We licence the ownership of firearms, and strictly limit the types that can be held legally.

[Polovirus]

DDA should be amended so that any dog of any type that bites or otherwise attacks a human should be automatically destroyed and the owner prosecuted. (. . .)If my little mut had bitten anyone - other than a burglar perhaps or in self defence - I would have taken him to the vets myself to have him put down.

In my experience, dogs almost never attack if unprovoked, or if not feeling that they need to defend themself. Problem is that we, humans, are not always able to predict when that would happen. Also dog owner, if not responsible, can inadvertly train his or hers dog to respond with violence earlier then it normally would.

And putting that aside, i dont believe that 6months in jail as a mandatory sentence for every dangerous breed dog owner is a good idea. Few reasons, lack of space in jails, lack of time for prosecuting and sentencing, low correction value of such punishment and amount of mixed breeds that would slip through a net.
Unfortunately there are no easy solutions for the dangerous dogs problem, or more accurately for dangerous breeds being treated as a status symbol and therefore being owned by people for whom ant farm would be too much responsibility to handle. Trying to solve that situation by punitive, legislative action was never a good option, but as usually - media aspect of a bad, but quick solution overwhelmed long term but less presentable effort of, for example, educating people of responsibilities of a dog owner.


I apologise for any typos that slipped past my attention, i'm using mobile atm and as much as predictive writing is the only thing that allows me to use mobile for posting in here, it also sometimes writer something different from what i intended.

[Tony Williams]

As Polovirus mentioned, the main technical difficulty in banning dangerous dogs is how to identify them in legal terms (until they attack someone, of course). There has been so much cross-breeding going on (and still continuning) that naming specific breeds can't cover this.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Ban or no ban, the question is why you would let small children be in the presence of potentially dangerous dogs (and I would argue some dogs are 'more' dangerous than others here - I don't have any evidence to support that statement so pull it apart if you can).

That is the common over-riding factor in these cases. If a relative of mine had a dog I considered potentially dangerous, I would not let my daughter near it.

Bans will always be circumvented by people who don't care or can make more money than the costs of being fined. Doesn't mean I'm opposed to banning of *known* dangerous breeds, but again I bow to whatever the science says about what constitutes danger or risk, as I am far from an expert.

[panama]

There are no dangerous dogs only uncontrolled animals and stupid, thoughtless people. Some people shouldn't be allowed to keep pets.

An argument for the return of the dog license?

[Croydon Bob]

I am far from an expert.

Yes. I resisted commenting for a while because I don't know much about the subject and I was in danger of posting along the lines of: "something must be done!"

The original question was: If a sceptical approach to dog attacks is pursued, what is the outcome?

I need far more info than I have to answer that. It is clear that The Dangerous Dog Act 1991 didn't achieve its objectives. Would another, stricter, Act help? Or should we just scrap it? Return of Dog Licence? Perhaps yes.

20 or 30 years ago most of the dog shit on Croydon pavements was coming from poodles and spaniels belonging to little old ladies. Now it is coming from big Pit Bull-like dogs belonging to under-thirties. I’ve even had a teenage thug turn up on my doorstep, with a ferocious dog, claiming to be a neighbour and demanding that I “lend” him £10. I was in the south of France last year and there’s way more dog shit on their pavements and it’s almost all from little dogs owned by grannies, just like the UK used to be.

Big aggressive dogs have become both weapons and penis-extensions.

So… erm… something must be done.

[Admin]

There are no dangerous dogs

I would say that there are dangerous dogs. The potential to maim and kill lies within the dog. Whilst some owners may be irresponsible, any dog that has the capability to cause serious injury or death is always a danger.

I know dog lovers prefer the "it's the owner's fault, not the dog's" when things like this happen; and whilst it may partially be true, it's the dogs' physical capability to do such damage in the first place that is the ultimate cause of the problem.

Perhaps the dangerous dogs act needs to be revisited, expanded, and above all, enforced.

As it is, we'll be subject to tragic stories like this every few months or so if nothing is done - I've been saying this for years now.

One possible way forward might be to stop trying to identify dangerous breeds and define categories of dangerous characteristics. No doubt that would cause problems with borderline category cases but it might help identify cross-breeds that don't come under the DDA but still pose a risk of causing serious harm nevertheless.

[chaggle]

I don't know if there can be a "sceptical approach" to dog attacks, but personally I think that the DDA should be amended so that any dog of any type that bites or otherwise attacks a human should be automatically destroyed and the owner prosecuted. I say this as a former dog owner myself (who would still be a dog owner if his wife didn't prefer cats). If my little mut had bitten anyone - other than a burglar perhaps or in self defence - I would have taken him to the vets myself to have him put down. Much as I loved the little creature, people are of infinitely more importance.

Would that be an absolute rule?

An anecdote: My little mutt (see avatar) is a bit nervous - once he knows you he's fine but he tends to react aggressively sometimes, for instance if someone enters a room suddenly and noisily. I am therefore very careful with him especially around children (who generally love him and try to stroke him).

The other day he was curled up as usual under my stool in the pub when he suddenly leapt up, darted as far as his tied-up lead would let him and 'had a bit of a go'. It was the beer deliveryman noisily rolling a barrel past him. (It has to be said that this wasn't Fraggle's finest hour). The guy was a bit put out particularly as the pretty barmaid to whom he complained merely laughed at him. The dog didn't bite him but I suspect the intent was there. If his lead had been longer - who knows? He was just surprised and jumped.

Would this have been an immediate death sentence?

Incidentally it is mandatory here to have your dog chipped and registered. I don't know if this helps at all, I know lots of people with unchipped dogs.

[brianp]

He was just surprised and jumped.

Would this have been an immediate death sentence?

Maybe the kids who were mauled to death also surprised their killers.

A dog is likely to be "surprised" many times in its life - and if its immediate reaction to "surprise" is to attack then it is a dangerous dog and should be destroyed. The next person to surprise it might be the baby next door.

[polomint38]

Yes. I resisted commenting for a while because I don't know much about the subject and I was in danger of posting along the lines of: "something must be done!"

This has never stopped you before

(It has to be said that this wasn't Fraggle's finest hour).

Chaggle and Fraggle? Do all your relatives have rhyming names?

Why kill the dog and fine the owner?
The owner is culpable under law, so kill the owner and fine the dog.

[Croydon Bob]

This has never stopped you before

Pot. Kettle. Shade differential.

[polomint38]

Maybe the kids who were mauled to death also surprised their killers.

A dog is likely to be "surprised" many times in its life - and if its immediate reaction to "surprise" is to attack then it is a dangerous dog and should be destroyed. The next person to surprise it might be the baby next door.

Brian, I was Will Robinsoned, so now take your point.

The baby next door, should not be left in position where it can get to the dog next door or the dog get to it, unless under "very" controlled conditions. baby's should be being supervised.

In general we need to teach both the dogs and the children (and a lot of adults) , how to behave around each other.

As a child, I think our pet dogs dealt quite admirable with having tails pulled etc. (for those with no experience of pets, do not try on cats, they have no sense of humour)

[panama]

I would say that there are dangerous dogs. The potential to maim and kill lies within the dog. Whilst some owners may be irresponsible, any dog that has the capability to cause serious injury or death is always a danger.

I know dog lovers prefer the "it's the owner's fault, not the dog's" when things like this happen; and whilst it may partially be true, it's the dogs' physical capability to do such damage in the first place that is the ultimate cause of the problem.

Perhaps the dangerous dogs act needs to be revisited, expanded, and above all, enforced.

As it is, we'll be subject to tragic stories like this every few months or so if nothing is done - I've been saying this for years now.

One possible way forward might be to stop trying to identify dangerous breeds and define categories of dangerous characteristics. No doubt that would cause problems with borderline category cases but it might help identify cross-breeds that don't come under the DDA but still pose a risk of causing serious harm nevertheless.

To expand my point:

All dogs are potentially dangerous, they are, after all, domesticated wolves, but they do not attack without reason. An attack may be offensive, a hungry dog hunting for food or defensive, the dog feels itself, it's pack or it's territory is under threat. Here's an article on the subject:http://www.doglistener.co.uk/aggression/types.shtml.

My contention is that by taking an animal into our homes we also take on a range of responsibilities to that animal and to those that come into contact with that animal. An animal behaving as it is naturally disposed to do in an artificial environment requires careful and informed handling and training. The animal is NOT responsible for it's behavior. The owner/trainer IS. Some owner/trainers are NOT responsible. Some are wilful. The fault lies with the owner.