Dangerous Dogs

[chaggle]

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

I think this is a good point. I picked my dog up literally off the street - he was already three years old at the time - and although you can train a dog at that age, it makes it much more difficult. He has issues from living on the street for most of his life - he dislikes people with sticks and anybody who's a bit oddball (there are a few of those here). I doubt that I could train all of that out of him which is why I'm so bloody careful. Unlike most of the dogs around here he is always kept on the lead when out of the house until we get to clear walking country.

Contrast that with the children around here. They are dead scared of dogs -probably because most have then have been bitten once or twice. The reason for this is because they simply don't know how to behave with them. On two occasions I have had to leave where I was because a little boy kept quite deliberately kicking him under the table. Mum close by just kept smiling fondly - bet she'd have had something to say if the dog had reacted.

Anybody who leaves a dog of any size unattended anywhere near a baby (or vice versa) shouldn't be allowed to keep either.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

To expand my point:

...
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.

I think this is a good point. I picked my dog up literally off the street - he was already three years old at the time - and although you can train a dog at that age, it makes it much more difficult. He has issues from living on the street for most of his life - he dislikes people with sticks and anybody who's a bit oddball (there are a few of those here). I doubt that I could train all of that out of him which is why I'm so bloody careful. Unlike most of the dogs around here he is always kept on the lead when out of the house until we get to clear walking country.
......

I'm going to draw an extreme and slightly absurd analogy, but some people (maybe not in this country) keep lions/tigers and claim they are safe (often this is before said person manages to get horribly mauled or their head bitten off ). As a society would we say that we still need to teach the animal and people how to react amongst each other?

Ultimately, there may be human actions (long term e.g. bad owners, or short term e.g. children playing) which provoke an angry and violent response from a dog. As a society we make a decision how we deal with having potentially dangerous animals around. I don't think it all comes down to education or just criticising the bad owners. At some point you have to decide how foolproof your method of dealing with potentially bad owners is - that's when you think of prohibition and harsh penalty.

Not a criticism of anyone on this thread, but I feel dog owners do tend to see things through rose tinted spectacles some times, blaming others for transgressions when with current situation there will always be others to blame for evermore, so the owner responsibility thing may not be a long term solution.2

[ZERO]

I think the responsibility is entirely with people. Dogs can't reason out the consequences of their actions. It is up to dog owners to train their dogs as much as possible though they can still be unpredictable and it is up to parents to properly supervise their children.
It is unrealistic to expect a zero risk environment, like it or not we are part of the natural world with all its germs, bees, snakes, sharks, falling branches, land slides, tsunamis and so on. If a society is going to keep dogs the occasional attack is inevitable.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

....If a society is going to keep dogs the occasional attack is inevitable.

Indeed. The one thing you can never rely on is people. They are a disaster in everything they true. Fact.

[chaggle]

If a society is going to keep dogs the occasional attack is inevitable.

Well, we are as a society going to keep dogs aren't we? Therefore the occasional attack is going to happen. I would only have a small dog for that reason and also because I prefer small dogs. If we drive cars people (and children) are going to get killed by them. If we have swimming pools children are going to drown in them. As in many things, what is needed is a reasonable and considered approach.

[saoir]

Well, we are as a society going to keep dogs aren't we? Therefore the occasional attack is going to happen. I would only have a small dog for that reason and also because I prefer small dogs. If we drive cars people (and children) are going to get killed by them. If we have swimming pools children are going to drown in them. As in many things, what is needed is a reasonable and considered approach.

While this may be true, there is surely a logical argument for the fact that some kinds of dogs are more likely to attack than others and that it makes sense to therefore keep those that are less likely to attack.
Society has a responsibility to it's citizens and particularly to children. It therefore makes sense to me that certain breeds which are proven to be more likely to attack people should be banned.
I believe that these parents knew what they were doing and knew the risk they were taking. They should be prosecuted for their actions and also prosecuted for the death of their child, a child who did not have any choice and who's life has been savagely cut short because of the willful negligence on behalf of his parents.

[brianp]

They should be prosecuted for their actions and also prosecuted for the death of their child, a child who did not have any choice and who's life has been savagely cut short because of the willful negligence on behalf of his parents.

A similar case in 2007 resulted in the dog owner being charged under the
Dangerous Dogs Act and the child's grandmother being charged with manslaughter.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/122_07/

The gran was found not guilty:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/160_07/

but the dog owner, Kiel Simpson, was jailed for a short period:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...de/6661493.stm

[chaggle]

While this may be true, there is surely a logical argument for the fact that some kinds of dogs are more likely to attack than others and that it makes sense to therefore keep those that are less likely to attack.
Society has a responsibility to it's citizens and particularly to children. It therefore makes sense to me that certain breeds which are proven to be more likely to attack people should be banned.
I believe that these parents knew what they were doing and knew the risk they were taking. They should be prosecuted for their actions and also prosecuted for the death of their child, a child who did not have any choice and who's life has been savagely cut short because of the willful negligence on behalf of his parents.

All agreed.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

On the news last night, it stated that the police were still trying to ascertain the owner of the dog (although it was implied it was an uncle).

It is very sad as well, if indeed true, that the police face obstruction from finding out who is quite obviously responsible. Never mind the police's failure to act on the original information about the dogs being bred, ultimate responsibility must lie with the owner.

[brianp]

On the news last night, it stated that the police were still trying to ascertain the owner of the dog (although it was implied it was an uncle).

It is very sad as well, if indeed true, that the police face obstruction from finding out who is quite obviously responsible. Never mind the police's failure to act on the original information about the dogs being bred, ultimate responsibility must lie with the owner.

Man held after fatal dog attack

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...de/8392842.stm

[Floppit]

I'm late to this and too short on time to read all the responses - 'pologies!

I'm a dog owner, 2 of them actually but I don't subscribe to it all being in the rearing of a dog.

Dogs have been bred for tasks as much as they have been bred for appearance, in the latter we can see the results and the variance between them is striking, therefore for me the more likely reality is that the breeding for function has created a significant level of variance, additionally it can be seen - an obedience trial rarely includes a Jack Russell champion, yet any owner of said JRT can tell you they don't lack brain! The terrier has been bred to largely work alone, to be placed near prey and then left to get on with it not motion by motion ordered from a whistle!

When there's a mauling on the news I turn to hubby and say 'pit bull' - and yep, I'm right, it's a pit bull again. The pit bull was trained to fight, more than that though, it was bred for it, the muscles around the jaws provide a more powerful bite and like all terriers it locks down when biting (never 'pull' a terrier off - it'll take with it whatever is in it's mouth, you have to open the jaws to release it's grip first). It is physically equipped in a way that maximises it's destructive force and the speed at which it can do damage - it is NOT the same as pom fluff ball!

I have two dogs one lurcher and one terrier, they are both rescued ex workers, both have killed, both know how and I have had to get them off a cat before now (in my back yard despite 6 foot fencing!) the lurcher is easy to get off, hers is the ability to run and catch, once caught there's little tenacity, a shout is enough, the terrier is a different being, his nature is for the fight and only absolute force will remove him.

But owners do come into the equation in a big way and this I think is the other reason it always seems to be a pit bull! People that want aggression reward it and so it increases, but most of the time they have no substantial knowledge of animals, they can't even get the simplest of things right - being the boss in their own home. It comes down to being careful and TBH they aren't. Then of course there are those who are actively fighting their dogs - there's just nothing that needs to be said about that.

Both dogs are around my child but I did think about putting the terrier down before she was born, what saved him is being old, I'd had him more than a decade and in that time he has never even nipped a person, nor has he ever showed dominance over a dog he knows, nor has he ever shown aggression to a dog he knows, nor does he challenge the people around him verbally or physically. If he saw the child as prey his language would be clear and he was introduced in a large group of adults (many hands to avoid accidents!). His response was that of a low ranking male dog when a top ranking bitch has whelped! Massive over ingratiation, huge submission, tentative interest but with buckets of deference - this is unmistakably different from a response to prey.

I've worked in yards with up to 15 dogs free running all day, every day - dogs don't do each other serious harm except in exceptional circumstances, even a horrible looking fight for dominance results in fairly minor punctures and perhaps a ripped ear! The only times I have seen loose dogs really harm each other is between pack fighting. In a yard 100 metres from the next yard, two separate packs and a puppy strays out of bounds, the puppy's cries for help will bring it's own pack so the attackers work as a pack to silence the pup - that was a mess, for the pup and the ensuing all out pack fight - still no deaths, but then there were no pit bulls! Children scream when they're scared, visiting children are not same pack, visiting dogs are not same pack, if a person creates a primary one to one bond with a dog then even their own child may not be same pack.

Having children around dogs is a risk versus benefit equation, personally I accept my daughter may get nipped, that's part of dog language and while neither of my dogs has ever nipped a person I consider it always likely with every dog. I nip can catch an eye, can need stitching, can be serious but it isn't in the same league as a lock on fight or attack - after over a decade with multiple free roaming dogs I know the latter is exceptionally rare. Still though, I wouldn't have a dog I couldn't physically over power with relative ease - with or without a child!

[chaggle]

Should a dog which "snaps" or "nips" due to being startled or threatened be automatically put down - does that count as an attack?

[brianp]

Should a dog which "snaps" or "nips" due to being startled or threatened be automatically put down - does that count as an attack?

Ask the mother whose baby get's bitten because it startled the mut. Any dog which bites when surprised is a dangerous dog.

[chaggle]

Ask the mother whose baby get's bitten because it startled the mut. Any dog which bites when surprised is a dangerous dog.

OK. I ask Floppit.

[MischiefMonkey]

Sorry I abandoned this thread after starting it

My main point was that statistically speaking, you are as likely to be killed by a cow than a dog yet there is no call to ban cows. More children are killed by TVs falling on them than by dog attack. Even chocking on a grape is as great a risk.

With dogs other factors are usually involved. Dog and child in the care of a grandparent/non-owner where a child is killed.

So why is there a great furore when a child is killed by a dog when death by badly secured 42inch Plasma screen isn't?

chaggle - I would personally say it depends on circumstance - age of person nipped, what was going on before the nip. Might seem like a cop out, but there are so many factors involved in dog bites. But an out and out attack, the dog needs to be put to sleep.

I admit a bias as my childhood dog tore my sisters hand apart and I believe he would have killed her if she hadn't had lightning reflexes (put her hand up as he went for her) and if my mother hadn't been in the room with us (managed to get him off) He had attacked several times before and was very unpredictable - sister had done nothing we could tell to provoke him (we were watching TV eating chocolate) but he flew across the room to attack her.

However, when one of my dogs and my youngest son (aged 6 at the time) were both 'resource guarding' me, I wouldn't have blamed the dog if she'd snapped at Child. As a responsible owner I stepped in to make sure it never happened. As a normal dog (and child) the behaviour modification worked.



As an aside - anyone care to guess what breed my childhood dog was?