"Dangerous" Dogs

[Teasmaid]

Ban babies as well. Or at least lock them in a cage till they're of a functional age, then stick them back in once they reach retirement. They can be fed on dangerous dogs, and dead pensioner.

[melons]

I've acquired a ten year old mastiff/German shepherd cross. Biggest shit-house ever, I once thought it's ok when she's called upon and someone unwelcome comes into the house she'll bite their hand off - not her, the further into the house/garden a stranger comes the further up the stairs/behind the fence she legs it. Nasty loud bark on her, mind. Up until recently she was raised on farm land which has a down side, I'm gutted she's not taken to eating the neighbours cats.

 

 

I'd trust this dog with my kids more than i'd trust members of my family.

 

My dog is still a massive shit bag. We've moved back to her original home, should some sad act manage to get up the drive she will proudly run as fast as her old legs will take her to the far end of the garden (its a huge garden), and prance around barking sounding like she's the hardest thing ever. The other half was playing with the kids and chasing them up the drive the other day, roaring and scaring the shit out of them. He gets to the first gate and goes all quiet with a plan to yell and scare them, he gets to 20 yards from the second gate where the dog usually waits (she's lost most of her sight now too) and he does another run at the kids, the dog totally shits it, legs it into her kennel and stands behind her run barking at him.

 

 

[Teasmaid]

My dog is still a massive shit bag. We've moved back to her original home, should some sad act manage to get up the drive she will proudly run as fast as her old legs will take her to the far end of the garden (its a huge garden), and prance around barking sounding like she's the hardest thing ever. The other half was playing with the kids and chasing them up the drive the other day, roaring and scaring the shit out of them. He gets to the first gate and goes all quiet with a plan to yell and scare them, he gets to 20 yards from the second gate where the dog usually waits (she's lost most of her sight now too) and he does another run at the kids, the dog totally shits it, legs it into her kennel and stands behind her run barking at him.

 

 

All dog owners say the same "oh he's daft as a brush, scared of his own shadow, he'll lick you to death", etc.

 

Funny that, he seems to be sizing me up with a menacing stare, whilst slathering and emitting a low-level growl. I'm not getting the whole "Let's be friends" vibe from Fido, here.

[Jairzinho]

All dog owners say the same "oh he's daft as a brush, scared of his own shadow, he'll lick you to death", etc.

 

 

 

I don't. My dog is more intelligent that quite a lot of people on this forum. 

[Major Tom]

I don't. My dog is more intelligent that quite a lot of people on this forum. 

 

 

'than'

 

You included?

[Major Tom]

.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

.

[Sugar Ape]

 

All dog owners say the same "oh he's daft as a brush, scared of his own shadow, he'll lick you to death", etc.

Funny that, he seems to be sizing me up with a menacing stare, whilst slathering and emitting a low-level growl. I'm not getting the whole "Let's be friends" vibe from Fido, here.

 

Are you trying to imply this is some kind of common occurrence? Because I would strongly, strongly dispute that. If you're not then I don't see what kind of relevancy your point adds to the debate. If anything, people approach you when you are walking your dog and ask if they bite, are they aggressive etc... You don't just randomly walk up to people and start going " Oh he's daft as a brush, scared of his own shadow, he'll lick you to death " whilst your dog is growling at them.

 

I take my dogs to Crosby beach all the time. They are both tiny and wouldn't be capable of defending themselves from anything bigger than a Jack Russell. I've never been or felt threatened once, and if you've been to Crosby beach you'll know it's chocker full of dogs of every kind. I can count on no fingers the amount of times someone has said to me " my dog doesn't bite " whilst their dog was behaving aggressively towards me.

 

There are estimated to be 8.5 million dogs in the UK http://www.pfma.org.uk/pet-population/ ( though I've seen it reported over 10 million as well ) and 64 million people living here. We get circa 6,000 people admitted to hospital who need treatment after being bitten. Once you take out the people attacked breaking into a house, entering a garden uninvited, antagonising the dog or the dogs owner when the dog is there how many of these attacks are completely unprovoked? 4,000? 3,000? Less? Most injuries occur to children. Any breed can injure a child, I myself have only been bitten once in my life when I was a child and that was by a sausage dog.

 

I keep on hearing how " everyone knows what dogs attack people ". Do we really? It all just seems like speculation to me and that's without going into the double standards of, like Section, dismissing the views of people who own big dogs as being biased when a hell of a lot of people are basing their views on having a dog growl or go for them. They've got just as much right to say in their experience they haven't seen any problems with big dogs as someone else has to say ban them as they went for me once.

 

Also, according to Boss the dog responsible for the most attacks/deaths in the UK is the Pitbull. Which has, you know, been banned for over 20 years in the UK.

 

As with a hell of a lot of things, I'm strongly against banning and more in favour of stronger regulation. If you can prove that a certain breed is more likely to attack people then it should have certain conditions attached so not everyone can own one. I'm all for the requirement for all dogs to be microchipped, insured and licensed to check criminal backgrounds and do a spot check on the premises where the dog will be living. 

 

It would be self funding, like the DBS where I work, and could be means tested so you don't have to pay a fee if you earn under a certain amount. Have people out checking dogs for microchips ( which would then tell you if they are insured and licenced ) and if not then fine the owners. You can't legally use a car unless it's insured and it should be a requirement for dogs too.

 

[Mook]

Was Teasmaid not taking the piss?

[Rico1304]

Sugar Ape - is that right? 6,000 ADMITTED to hospital or visit hospital? If there are 100 people a week injured so severely that they have to stay in hospital id say it's a fucking big problem.

[Rico1304]

Just checked and according to the Guardian it's 200k bites a year!!! The 6k is admissions.

[Sugar Ape]

Was Teasmaid not taking the piss?

 

In response to Melons post I'd say not, though it's an easy out to take.

 

Sugar Ape - is that right? 6,000 ADMITTED to hospital or visit hospital? If there are 100 people a week injured so severely that they have to stay in hospital id say it's a fucking big problem.

 

Treated in hospital. And no, I don't think it's a fucking big problem in a population of 64 million that 100 people require treatment in hospital a week, especially when, as I said in my post, you don't know how many of those people were attacked unprovoked and how many were injured as a result of their own actions.

 

Half of them could be kids bitten by a cocker spaniel for all we know.

[moof]

Thats significantly less than 0.0001% of the population bitten per year.

[Major Tom]

I keep on hearing how " everyone knows what dogs attack people ". Do we really? It all just seems like speculation to me and that's without going into the double standards of, like Section, dismissing the views of people who own big dogs as being biased when a hell of a lot of people are basing their views on having a dog growl or go for them. They've got just as much right to say in their experience they haven't seen any problems with big dogs as someone else has to say ban them as they went for me once.

 

 

Except 6,000 hopsital admissions a year kind of flies in the face of this view, whether they have witnessed anything or not.

 

I've never felt threatened by a dog in my life. But I'm not scared of them. My wife is, though, and she feels threatened a fuck of a lot. And looking at through her eyes, I can easily see her point.

 

Dog attacks are a problem; one that needs to be sorted.

 

That is my truth.

 

edit: I misread your post. You're talking about 'big dogs' again. But most of my points still stand.

[Rico1304]

In response to Melons post I'd say not, though it's an easy out to take.

 

 

 

Treated in hospital. And no, I don't think it's a fucking big problem in a population of 64 million that 100 people require treatment in hospital a week, especially when, as I said in my post, you don't know how many of those people were attacked unprovoked and how many were injured as a result of their own actions.

 

Half of them could be kids bitten by a cocker spaniel for all we know.

Using the while population isn't correct though is it? If you don't own a dog or come into contact with one then you aren't going to be bitten.

 

What are the stats based on owners and their families?

[Sugar Ape]

Except 6,000 hopsital admissions a year kind of flies in the face of this view, whether they have witnessed anything or not.

 

I've never felt threatened by a dog in my life. But I'm not scared of them. My wife is, though, and she feels threatened a fuck of a lot. And looking at through her eyes, I can easily see her point.

 

Dog attacks are a problem; one that needs to be sorted.

 

That is my truth.

 

No, it doesn't fly in the face of that at all. That is a load of bollocks. An incredibly small amount of people suffer wounds bad enough that they need treatment in hospital. That does not mean it is in any way proportionate to suggest banning a load of breeds unless there is clear evidence that a particular breed is causing a lot more problems than other breeds.

 

My mum has a real fear of cats, but so fucking what? She shits herself if she sees one. That doesn't reflect on the cat, it's her problem. Dog attacks could be sorted most effectively by ensuring they are microchipped, insured and licensed. As with the Pitbull, banning alone doesn't resolve the problem.

[stringvest]

Far be it from me to be reactionary, but surely just culling these morons who insist on acquiring these dogs as some sort of horrific 'lifestyle extension' would sort the problem out once and for all.   Feed them and their shit leisurewear to the dogs.  Sovereigns can be melted down and sold off to feed the poor.

[Sugar Ape]

Using the while population isn't correct though is it? If you don't own a dog or come into contact with one then you aren't going to be bitten.

 

What are the stats based on owners and their families?

 

There are no stats on owners and their families that I can see. I think it very much is valid using the population as a whole. However, it's estimated 25-35% of all households own a dog. Even if all those attacks occured in those households alone ( which they clearly don't ) then that is still a small minority of dogs who attack anyone.

[Major Tom]

No, it doesn't fly in the face of that at all. That is a load of bollocks. An incredibly small amount of people suffer wounds bad enough that they need treatment in hospital. That does not mean it is in any way proportionate to suggest banning a load of breeds unless there is clear evidence that a particular breed is causing a lot more problems than other breeds.

 

My mum has a real fear of cats, but so fucking what? She shits herself if she sees one. That doesn't reflect on the cat, it's her problem. Dog attacks could be sorted most effectively by ensuring they are microchipped, insured and licensed. As with the Pitbull, banning alone doesn't resolve the problem.

 

6,000 hospitals seems a lot to me. Not to you. That's a fundamental difference and one we'll never bridge.

 

The bolded bit is great in theory, the reality is that it would take fuckloads of money to implement and no gov't would have the stomach for it.

[Sugar Ape]

Far be it from me to be reactionary, but surely just culling these morons who insist on acquiring these dogs as some sort of horrific 'lifestyle extension' would sort the problem out once and for all.   Feed them and their shit leisurewear to the dogs.  Sovereigns can be melted down and sold off to feed the poor.

 

If you had to be licensed, couldn't own certain breeds if you, or anyone else living in your household, had a criminal record and had the premises inspected to ensure they were suitable for the breed you want then that would cut down on a lot of that, no?

 

I really need to do some work now so I'll check back in later.

[Sugar Ape]

6,000 hospitals seems a lot to me. Not to you. That's a fundamental difference and one we'll never bridge.

 

The bolded bit is great in theory, the reality is that it would take fuckloads of money to implement and no gov't would have the stomach for it.

 

It would fund itself with licence fees like the DBS. Give people 5 years notice it's coming in and that is plenty of time for people to get prepared for it.

[Major Tom]

It would fund itself with licence fees like the DBS. Give people 5 years notice it's coming in and that is plenty of time for people to get prepared for it.

 

I actually think it's not a bad idea.

 

My other issue is that the cost of owning a dog may sky rocket. Putting something else out of the reaches of poorer people.

[stringvest]

If you had to be licensed, couldn't own certain breeds if you, or anyone else living in your household, had a criminal record and had the premises inspected to ensure they were suitable for the breed you want then that would cut down on a lot of that, no?

 

I really need to do some work now so I'll check back in later.

 

 

Is it worth the huge expense and administrative overheads just to placate a few people who want to keep these breeds?  Would they be prepared to pay for it?  Don't think so.  Plus, any scumbag worth his salt will find a hundred ways of circumventing the rules.  It's in the job description.  

[Sugar Ape]

I actually think it's not a bad idea.

 

My other issue is that the cost of owning a dog may sky rocket. Putting something else out of the reaches of poorer people.

 

That is something I'm not comfortable about, which is why I said I'd exempt people from paying for a licence if they earned under a certain amount. If you are poor you still need to get your car insured and I think it should be the same for a dog. You could maybe set the charges higher for a licence for dogs that are deemed by some to be more dangerous like a Rottweiler or a German Shepherd and have it cheaper for other breeds.

[Sugar Ape]

Is it worth the huge expense and administrative overheads just to placate a few people who want to keep these breeds?  Would they be prepared to pay for it?  Don't think so.  Plus, any scumbag worth his salt will find a hundred ways of circumventing the rules.  It's in the job description.  

 

So what's the answer then, Stringy? We banned Pitbulls and they are still responsible for more assaults than any other dog. Like you say, if these scumbags want a pitbull then they'll get one. It wouldn't be a popular decision to take but it would drastically lower dog attacks in my view.