What can we do about dangerous dogs?

[Create10]

There were 10 fatal dog attacks in the UK last year. A massive number compared to previous years. And, sadly, another already this year.

I have seen 100 suggestions over the years on Mumsnet, but there are always objections to taking any form of action against the dogs.

If it is suggested that more breeds are banned, there are the people who argue that no breed is intrinsically dangerous, and that is the fault of irresponsible owners, attracted to certain breeds, that any dog attacks. But how do we stop this? Irresponsible owners are not going to attend courses on how to be a responsible dog owner.

And then people argue that other dogs can dangerous - the dangerous retriever or poodle or spaniel. But these dogs are never found on the list of dogs causing fatal attacks. They are almost always the bullies, bulldogs, mastiffs, huskies, Rottweilers and Alsatians. You have to go back to 2015 to find an incident that is not one of these dogs. Since 1981 there are four examples which are not these dogs, out of 62. Two of these four are Jack Russells, who I think only don't cause more deaths because of their size.

And I think that's the key, to an extent. A human stands a fighting chance of escaping from many vicious dogs, but they simply cannot beat any of the breeds named above.

I personally do think it's in these dogs' nature to be aggressive. I think it's in their DNA (and I know it is in some other breeds too, but they don't have the strength of those above). But I understand that some people think it's all about the owner and the training. So if we don't ban breeds, so that anyone who notices one being led around their estate can report them, what do we do?

My job involves walking around estates for many hours a week, and I often walk past these dogs, and I think that there is absolutely no way that the owner could prevent the dog attacking. They are just too strong. It is becoming really quite intimidating in ways in which I haven't noticed in previous years.

So rather than a 'should we ban these breeds?' thread I suppose I'm asking what those people who think it's down to to nurture and not nature think would work in protecting the public (and owners' families - and themselves) from dog attacks?

@Epiphany2023 There is no livestock in my area and we walk on established footpaths that cross the fields so I don’t require anyone’s permission. I pick up poo so the impact is minimal .

If you are worried about contaminated food chains, I would suggest that you focus on the use of biosolids (human waste) as a fertiliser which is contaminating soil and waterways impacting on food produced in this country and imported from abroad. You could also write to your MP about the discharge of raw human sewage by the water companies contaminating rivers and sea theriverstrust.org/key-issues/sewage-in-rivers impacting of the seafood and the livelihood of fisherman

The trick is in how any of this would be enforced.
We can't enforce existing breed bans, and how many dogs do you see without a tag despite that being the law? Around me for example I regularly see dogs with cropped tails and ears. That's illegal to do (mostly) in this country but there's hundreds of dogs where it's clearly happening to. Theres celebrities with xl bullies clearly being cropped in this country, whole Instagram pages selling cropped puppies. You can see that from a distance, how could you see licencing from a distance?

The reason car tax, mot, insurance works is because it can be checked remotely at every traffic light, every motorway, any passing police officer. They can scan a whole car park while your not even there. Think how many cars are scanned a day via that method. How would that work for dogs? By the time the first person was approached in a park, the rest would have left

My main concern is that people would avoid vets. If you have a dog that looks like a banned breed currently then any form of vet care puts them at risk of being seized. People already avoid vets because of the cost and there's lots of cruelty cases of dogs being treated inadequately at home with honey etc.
Anyone with a dog that doesn't have a licence for whatever reason, or where their dog is too tall, insurance has lapsed or whatever are going to leave dogs to suffer.

Vets can't be the enforces, for the same reason the NHS just check your passport when you go in to A+E

The dogs that will be monitored in that system aren't the dogs causing bites. Do you think people with xl bullies are going to report their own dog as having a warning sign for aggression? Do you think they are bought via legitimate channels, seeing vets regularly etc?

It will just create a huge underworld of dogs

He is gorgeous, thank you. So trusting after everything humans put him through.

I don’t expect everyone to like him but the blanket statements about him and me are a lot at times!

My concern is that we will end up with packs of feral dogs like they have in Greece etc 😨

The reason car tax, mot, insurance works is because it can be checked remotely at every traffic light, every motorway, any passing police officer. They can scan a whole car park while your not even there. Think how many cars are scanned a day via that method. How would that work for dogs? By the time the first person was approached in a park, the rest would have left
We could surely have cameras with AI that recognises dogs and which were able to recognise the ones that don't have a chip?
Yes it would mean that bad owners would keep their dogs indoors but at least they couldn't be a danger to the public, it would be a start, a first step in getting the problem under control.

Tales of it being a bull fighting bred dog are mistaken. Such is the lot for many Victorian era dogs. Bred as companions, to look fierce, gentlemen's posing dogs. Soft and daft as a brush, as a breed.

No, they were bred to be fighting dogs. Often pit fighting. It was after that that they began to be bred to be fashionable gentleman's dogs. Your dog might be soft and pliable, but if it wasn't one day, there would be absolutely nothing you could do to protect yourself or anyone else. So often it's the soft, harmless family pet who has never demonstrated any aggression which suddenly attacks. It is their nature, it was what they were created for.

The men are violent argument is just deflection

Given how many children have died due to aggressive dogs in last few years, we should as a society try to fix this instead of saying what about men

@Soothsayer1 how would you scan though? Even if you had a system where via cctv they could recognise an unregistered dog had walked past, you would need to deploy police immediately. If they are unregistered then you'd have no address

A car is usually stored on a road or visible from the road. A stationary car is usually ticketed, clamped or a moving is pulled over by police, often uninsured cars are still registered to an address somewhere

The reality is it will be more like driving licences where actually ive never had mine checked, and it's estimated that there's huge numbers of people driving without them or while banned because there's no ability to check it. It's usually picked up when there's also no insurance etc. It can't be done by driver recognition only by checking number plates.

I want all the big breeds banned but will settle for muzzles in public places.

Not to be pedantic, but all dogs are capable of killing a human. They’re dogs- predator animals

Yes if the human sat there and let it. I can assure you that if a Yorkshire Terrier tried it on with me I would properly own its yappy little arse.

Perhaps not a full ban (I am not a fan of dogs but get why people like them) but owners should be licensed and all dogs must be microchipped. Limit on number of dogs owned to avoid the neglect cases of someone having 20+ dogs etc

Reports of dangerous dogs should be taken more seriously and additional powers to those who deal with these matters.

Microchips are already the law
How would you enforce licencing?
I feel like it always gets brought up with zero plan of how it would be implemented

If you say so.

The predecessors of many dogs were used for fighting in pits, bulls, foxes, other dogs, badgers etc. It was bulldogs that were the bull fighting dogs. Rat terriers that caught rats, were quick and agile. 'Rat and bull' terriers were bred to be dog fighting dogs. They were any combination of any bull dog and any terrier and weren't the dog known as the Bull Terrier now.

That was a cross, a half and half dog, initially known as a White Cavalier. It was one of the smaller bull and terrier crosses then crossed with white dogs, carriage dogs - like Dalmatians -all cross bred for a showy gentleman's companion dog. Bred to pose.

The Bull Terrier has gone through many breeding incarnations since the 17/1800s. The specific breed was not bred for fighting, not preferred for ratting and has been further bred for being a quieter, calmer, odd looking dog.

That the name Bull and Terrier was used to describe many, many fighting dogs means that even now poorly written histories of the breed state that it was originally a bull fighting dog. And to many people who don't like dogs to insist that it remains a fighting dog.

But given that what you actually want is to remove all dogs from society as opposed to a workable solution I know you won't entertain any of the above.

???

Unfortunately microchips, like collars, are still seen as a 'nice to have' by some people. Licensing is easy enough - just follow the gun license model from Norway or Switzerland, not perfect but a place to start. Anything without a microchip is pts.

No more dogs for sale in Facebook marketplace etc & crack down on dodgy breeders. Only licensed breeders who microchip all puppies etc

License is linked to microchip. Dog being remotely dangerous, nippy, runaway out of control etc is reported and the dog removed from the owner.

I am fed up of warnings being given. A more decisive action is required.

I'd be devastated to have my ownership of my dogs impinged by legislation but at the same time something needs to be done about these hideous XL bully (pitbull crosses - they are)/bull crosses etc. They are 99% owned by thick idiots who shouldn't even own a goldfish.

People need to stop coming out the bollocks 'all dogs can kill'. Do you actually really believe a chihuahua is as much of a risk to the general public as an XL bully? Clearly the only people who thick enough to say that are the owners of XL bullys etc. Clearly.

Sadly I think there is going to have to be rules about where dogs can be owned and by whom.

😂 You what? Where have I said I want to remove all dogs from society? I have a dog. Your over defensiveness is causing you to make things up.

Yes, the 'bull and terrier' breeds were crossed and bred for blood sports. Their descendants are bull terriers, pit bulls, staffies and so on. Their heritage should not be ignored.

Oh! Was it someone else on this thread that said that?

OK.

You're grouping boston terriers, frenchies and pugs alongside akitas and xl bullies? You do not sound like a rational person

Treat them a bit like cars. Make third party insurance a mandatory requirement, let insurers price the insurance according to breed risk. Some dogs could be uninsurable and thereby illegal.

Get insurers to offer discounts where owners can show they've completed a dog training course, dog breeding course etc.

Tbh it would price a lot of people out of dog ownership but I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.

I’m wondering if, rather than tying dog ownership bans to breeds or paperwork, we need to give due consideration to possible living conditions. For instance, about 90% of high density urban areas are utterly unsuitable for keeping any breed of dog larger than a toy poodle or dachshund, and quite a lot of flat developments have an outright ban on keeping pets at all. It stands to reason that large and/or high energy breeds need, as well as exercise, a lot of space, outdoor and indoor - which most of us, in our housing estates with (if you’re lucky) postage stamp gardens, just don’t have.

Maybe mortgages on certain kinds of property could include conditions such as restrictions on pet ownership. Although how this might be enforced is another question.

If you can't afford the above measures, that's just tough luck and you better get a goldfish!

I get your point, but goldfish need the company of their own kind and a proper aquarium as well. Maybe stuffed toys or virtual pets are a better idea?

I know you’re being sarcastic, but it’s actually true - dog owners have more happy hormones thanks to a lovely feedback loop that occurs when we bond with our pets. We’re happier and healthier and our heads are full of sparkles and love. It’s wonderful.

Tell me you know nothing about the countryside without telling me you know nothing about the countryside.