Protecting kids from dogs

[Yeen]

We live very close to some lovely woods where I take my DC walking most days. Lots of dog walkers as you'd expect, most dogs on lead and perfectly friendly (I haven't got a problem with dogs). However recently there's been a huge increase in very large pit bull type breeds (I think they're American Bully XL dogs), and they never seem to be on leads - owners often miles away. I find these types of dogs really intimidating and most of the recent dog attacks in the news seem to involve them. I have no idea how I would even go about attempting to protect my DC if one attacked. If one is nearby I make sure DC aren't running around and are standing with me. Are there any other practical steps I could take?! I am usually carrying a hot drink of some sort, is that going to be of any practical use against a dog if it attacks??

Are you always so incredibly rude and aggressive?

I do stick up for myself when others are disingenuously selectively quoting me and twisting my meaning, yes. You could have been less dishonest there.

I can't see that dog exercise parks would solve the issue of dog on dog attacks either, which also seem to be common with bull breeds.

Maybe not, but it would go a long way to saving the problem you're complaining about.

The fact of the matter is the right to own dogs should not come above the safety of humans.

The fact is, if we want changes (and I do too if there's really an explosion of dangerous dog ownership happening), there's a policy process, and laws require definitions, otherwise you can't draft them.

The fact is, if we want changes (and I do too if there's really an explosion of dangerous dog ownership happening), there's a policy process, and laws require definitions, otherwise you can't draft them.

I gave you definitions of dangerous, you didn't like them. You can't simply select dangerous dogs based on their behaviour, because that would mean you were designating them as dangerous after they'd already seriously injured or potentially killed another human being, or another dog. You can't do that. Unfortunately that means some completely innocent dogs are going to get penalised, but that's a necessary evil.

Bullshit
these are dangerous animals, they should not be kept as pets.

The dogs in the attacks? Do we know the breeds? You mean the breeds are dangerous? Or do you mean the individual dogs are dangerous?

Obviously a dog that attacks IS dangerous.

Didn't like them? Look if you think you can define dangerousness as "heavy" then go ahead and lobby. Start petitions. Write to your MP. But you'll struggle to get anywhere for the reasons I've said. Nobody is going to want to ban St Bernard's because they're heavy and therefore, according to you, dangerous.

You'll just sound silly.

I believe you stated based on weight previously. What weight do you think is the maximum that should be allowed?

The House of Lords have proved themselves to be real animal people recently as the successive Animal Welfare bills have started to be debated.

I suppose enough of them are landed gentry, that animal knowledge is inevitable.

That's who will be rubber stamping law changes, so proposals have to stand up to rational scrutiny. Otherwise they will get nowhere.

So you do think that the only way to define dangerous is after the specific dog in question has behaved dangerously, then. Good to know.

No of course not.

I was trying to understand what PP meant by "these dogs".

Lots of professional expertise has been poured into the question of how to identify dangerous dogs. For decades.

If it was easy to improve on that by saying "dogs over 30kgs are the problem" or "ginger dogs are the problem" then those rules would have been legislated by now.

The thing is no dog is dangerous purely because of breed or weight. Historically, dogs were not bred to show aggression towards people, even bullbaiting and fighting dogs had to be placid to humans and would not be bred if they showed aggression to their handlers.

What's gone wrong with dogs is caused mostly by bad breeding by people looking to make a quick £££. There are other issues at play but the biggest one is breeding.

If you look at the silver fox study which looked at the process of domestication, you can see how quickly poor selective breeding can change behaviour and physiology. The opposite is also true. We can very quickly correct the issues BYBs have caused if we go back to breeding responsibly.

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0090-x

Banning dogs based on weight and breed won't stop bad breeding practices. The people looking to create aggressive dogs will only move on to another mix of crossbreeds or create smaller Frankendogs.

We have a big problem with out of control dogs in our local park. I don't like going there anymore. The owners are not people you can have a nice reasonable chat with either.

I know many people who absent themselves from parks because they are overrun with dogs. Parks are publicly funded for everyone's use, but the large majority of the people who use my local park are dog walkers. Like all self-exclusion this is silent and largely invisible (though the underrepresentation of local Muslim minorities among park users is visible). It's the same in every other park - there isn't a single dog-free alternative.

I didn't think it possible, but you appear to know even less about animal behaviour than you do about dog identification. Your theory about categorising dangerous by size and weight is crazy, and BSL has been demonstrated not to work. Dangerous dogs come in all shapes and sizes, and even the smallest dog is capable of inflicting a life-changing injury if abused or provoked.

I've only ever known two truly dangerous dogs. One was an Alsation and the other was a Jack Russell. Your criteria would ignore them. A dog doesn't have to atack someone for the dangerous behaviour traits to be recognised.

I agree 100% with this.

I wish I could find it again, I've tried. But a while back I watched some interviews with breeders who were breeding American Bully dogs. Whilst they were claiming that the first breeders were trying to create family friendly dogs they admitted choosing the pit bull as the stock dog because of its instinct to protect and its tenacity, and also trying to circumvent the fact that pit bulls were banned in many places/states. It seems to me what they wished to create was a heavier more muscular pit bull. Many of the breeders claim also to train these dogs in protection work. Aggression was bred into these dogs from the start quite purposefully.

Since this mongrel of a bull type dog is now being bred with heavier giant breeds, like mastif and bred with other dogs that were bred for guarding the liklihood is that the dogs are more susceptible to aggression towards humans. This is not a trait that has ever before been bred into any other bull breed.

What sort of legislation, and what sort of restrictions and licensing need to be brought in to stop this? Some of the top (read, professional) breeders of these dogs are not really BYB anymore.

What sort of oversight is needed to ensure only breeding to enhance positive traits? Because if we look at GSD and the sloped back, Pugs and selective breeding to create shorter muzzle, and many other breeds that have show standards creating unhealthy dogs it suggests that breeders don't always select for positive traits and good health. So what can be done?

At the moment only American bully dogs are only recognised as a breed by the American Bully Kennel Club, something the breeders set up. I think this needs to change, and the American Bully kennel Club might hopefully be seen as superfluous? Only then might there be some way to gain some breed standard and eventually stop BYB? would this have any positive effect?

the other was a Jack Russell
Jack Russell!!
you'd have no chance, it'd be like being attacked by a lion wouldnt it!

DogInATent only two dogs I've ever been scared of, one was an off lead growling GSD the other a maniac of a JRT that used to escape and bite everyone's ankles.

Yes that rings true to my experience too.

The first Jack Russell I ever knew well was an absolute menace. Just a really vicious, untrained hopeless dog. Forever growling and nipping children and/or legs. I remember it biting a young child's nose. The owner's MO was to apologise and cry and promise to get it training. I moved away not long after the nose incident but I bet it escalated further.

And Alsatians are a very mixed bunch. I've met a few I wouldn't have allowed anywhere near children.

I've known loads of horrible jack russells but the fact of the matter is a jack russell is unlikely to kill you.

Make your mind up.

When I said putting a duty in LAs to provide dedicated dog walking fields would help solve the concerns in your OP, your answer was that it was no good because it wouldn't solve dog on dog attacks.

Now a few of us have observed that JRTs can be a problematic breed (and I have one myself now from a rescue so I don't hate the breed), you Pooh Pooh that because a JR attack is very unlikely to kill.

Would you want your child's face bitten by a Jack Russell?

I'm struggling to follow your twists and turns.

In new York they haven't fenced off speficic areas for dogs.
Unfortunately reckless owners and nasty breeds mean we should considered this where

I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

My concern is about breeds that have the potential to kill humans due to their size and strength. I'm fully aware small dogs can be extremely aggressive and bite, but the chances of a chihuahua or Jack Russell or similar killing a child is virtually nil. If an aggressive Jack Russell approached us off leash I would be able to place my children out of its reach.

I don't have an issue with dog exercise areas but I don't see how they help the issue of people owning large, dangerous breeds which were bred to be fighting dogs. And presumably then in dog exercise areas other dog walkers would be at risk from these dogs.

If you look at the list of fatal dog attacks you can see that only a few breeds are implicated. Therefore I do not see that banning those breeds who are most responsible would possibly be any kind of bad thing.

I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm not really surprised.

The five most dangerous breeds of dog in the UK, as identified by a pet insurer from police statistics (Merseyside Police):

1. Jack Russel
2. Staffordshire Bull Terrier
3. Pit Bull Terrier
4. German Shepherd
5. Rottweiler

The first two are in many ways handicapped by their popularity - there are more of them. The Pit Bull Terrier at three is a banned breed, and I suspect this is a more honest description of the American Bully XL - which is just one of many attempts to get around what is/isn't a PBT (the OP's delibefately avoided acknowledgling that noone on this thread is defending Bully XLs).

I'm pretty sure these stats underestimate bites from the smaller and toy breeds. Ask any vet which breed is most likely to bite them and I'm confident it'll be the smaller yappy breeds - Dachsunds (breed to face down badgers) have a very high reputation for being bitey-wee-b'stards.

I think there is another issue that people who are not dog people overlook. Many so called BYB Staffordshire bull terriers are not in fact pure bred Staffordshire bull terriers.

The short stocky dog is
The other is a pit
The puppy is according to its breeder a staff, and most definitely isn't.

There are rather a lot of tall, long legged, very athletic Staffs about, that clearly are not Staffs. If you look at the face they have the chiselled but well developed cheek muscles but the muzzle is longer and slightly narrower in proportion to its skull, the eyes closer set and vertical wrinkles between the eyes. They look nothing like a staff in my opinion. I'm assuming that pit bulls were bred with Staffs before and after the ban, again trying to get round BSL.