In thinking something is very very VERY wrong with some dog owners? [Long, sorry, but feel kinda strongly here!]

[StoicButStressed]

Dogs and irresponsible dog owners - am just so so angry at this and the 'latest' death of a child. I can't get my head round the utter horror of a young teenage girl mauled to death by a pack of dogs at her friends house. Or the sheer terror she must have felt as clearly she would not have died instantly. Apart from all the countless other serious (& disfiguring etc) injuries suffered by dog attacks - & that only make it as far as the local newspaper - 7 people, FIVE of whom were children have been killed by dogs IN homes. Clearly that figure is now 8.

Those stats (aka people) are from a report by the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs Committee. It also said 'the NHS spends more than £3m a year treating severe dog attack injuries and claimed current legislation had "comprehensively failed" to tackle irresponsible dog ownership. Gather there is some legislation coming in in 2016 (WTF???) but seems nowhere near enough. NHS costs of £3m hint at the number of attacks that fly below media radar - but it must be a bloody huge number???? I know (I hope) that most dog-owners are responsible people, but clearly a shedload aren't. WHY are they allowed to have dogs? There isn't even a basic bloody licence system anymore and it pisses me off that there ISN'T a more robust legislation system in place. I also think they should be on leads in public other than designated areas and I swear if I hear one more quote from someone whose dog has attacked/killed a kid saying "But he is such a LOVELY dog normally", I think I'll nut my TV screen.

I was bitten badly by a German Shepherd as a teenager when simply walking home. DS1, aged 2 at the time, was sent flying (literally) when a huge dog - obv NOT on a lead - suddenly charged at him from far corner of a park and sent him off his feet high into the air. DS1 was TERRIFIED for months any time we even stepped into a bloody park. NEITHER of those 2 dog 'owners' did a thing - literally NADA. Am steaming just recalling the (huge and L/term) impact it had on DS1. Dogs are pack animals who need training, taking care of, and exercising - if people can't do that, why the fuck should they be able to HAVE dogs? And I genuinely cannot think of any friends WITH dogs who would disagree with that - they seem as angry as me at the irresponsible owners who inflict such frickin carnage. AIBU in thinking something HAS to change here????

Other thing about the very recent death is my younger DS's would LOVE to have a dog - but I know I can't afford it (food, vet's bills, etc etc) OR have the time TO properly look after it. So (& I am NOT benefit bashing here, am solely referencing this one individual) HTFuck does a Mum of 5 on benefits afford the 5 bloody dogs that just killed this child? Or is there a link between that and the fact the dogs weren't trained etc etc? And somewhere, lying in a fucking morgue, is a dead teenage girl - said to be 'unrecognisable' from the mass mauling that killed her.

Toboldlygo I'm sure we both know that breeding licences are an absolute joke and no one should be breeding five litters a year. The breeders who need licences are almost always the type of breeder the public should be avoiding and yet they use the fact they are licensed as some sort of mark of quality.

'The kind of owners that are the problem won't get a dog license.'

They would if not carrying or being able to produce it within 7 days could have you fined and your dog seized...

I'm a dog owner and in general a dog lover - but I think it should be more like driving a car where you have to prove you're capable of owning one.

Not just as a reaction to this situation or dog attacks, but because of the low level nuisance that irresponsible dog owners cause and because of the living conditions that some dogs have to put up with.

Absolutely, midori, it's ridiculously flawed. The KC AB scheme isn't a 100% mark of quality either. It was just a useful example to those hollering for more legislation - dog control laws already exist, they just aren't always especially useful in ther current form (see: back yard breeding, breed specific legislation etc.) and they simply aren't upheld.

Licensing is a shit idea. We have it in NZ, and of course all the responsible dog owners pay it. Do you think the feckless ones, the sort who buy vicious breeds like American pitbulls and staffies and then don't even give them basic training, bother?

Toboldly, Midori, & TheMaltese ....

Unless mistaken, the issue you're flagging is: 'it's pointless as...'

i) law currently way under par anyway? (Although the 2016 - but again, a WTF at 2016??? - incoming legislation will address some of that); &
ii) ENFORCEMENT of the bloody law?

As I suspect what Themaltese says is RIGHT in that responsible owners pay licence fee and the feckless - AKA frickin potentially lethal ones - don't. But that DOESN'T mean licensing is a 'shit idea' - it means not bloody ENFORCING it is beyond a shit reality. Ditto the madness I cannot get my head around fact that owners are somehow NOT responsible if their dogs attack &/or kill in their own homes, but ARE if outside?

So I'm with what tabulahrasa re-quoted and then made the obvious - BLOODY OBVIOUS - point below on:

'The kind of owners that are the problem won't get a dog license.'

They would if not carrying or being able to produce it within 7 days could have you fined and your dog seized...

IE - legislation needs changing but SO does enforcement. Literally, substitute the word 'dog' &/or what I only NOW know via this thread as 'Backyard Breeders' with 'car' (both of which potentially lethal and cost lives so the analogy is not a spurious one) vis insurance/licence/criminal consequences and it's NOT hard to see how that WOULD work IF the laws were in place AND bloody enforced properly. Or am I just being thick here?

AND would see off the 'BYB's' AND the 'feckless' gits that do this, but allow decent dog-owners to carry on behaving as they are? AND save the rest of us from at 'best' dog-shit everywhere you go, through to the VERY worst of things such as the life of the girl just lost????

Every single bullock, heifer, cow, bull in this country has to have a tag attached to its ear and an electronic passport resgistered on a Govt computer and woe betide any farmer that fails to have it done. Its done to prevent a disease (BSE) that kills people .

Yet dogs are just allowed to walk about killing people. Go figure.

Charlearose (2 or 3 posts up for anyone who missed it)

YES.
YES.
YES.

THAT is precisely the kind of thing needed and nope, is NOT unworkable. And it beats the crap out of anyone else dying; being maimed; bitten or just scared SHITLESS by one of the dogs that has the misfortune to 'belong' to people like this.

Methinks an MN Campaign should occur - how many DC's do we 3mn have between us????

Birdsgottafly - what on earth do cross breeds have to do with anything? I have one of these 'fashionable cross breeds' and he is well trained because I have spent the time training him. I would have put the same amount of training into any dog whether pure breed/cross/mixture.

The majority of over breeding and backyard breeders are because pure breed dogs are desirable and command a high price. The dogs which killed Jade Anderson were pure breed dogs.

Get off your pure breed high horse!

I personally think that all dog/potential owners must pass a licencing test before being allowed to have a dog.

True. But I also think people should have to pass a similar test before being allowed to have children. Far more importantly then passing a dog test IMO

sorry if this has already been said

but one of the problems with staffi/pitbull types and why there are so many about with young men is because they are used for protection,awhile ago these people would carry knives or worse,they can be arrested for that so the dogs are legal and took the place of weapons in a different form

i feel for these dogs,they build them up (muscle wise) and provoke them to be aggresive,it's a horrible life these dogs have,just wish it would stop

are local Gumtree is awash with backstreet breaders advertising staff's etc,gumtree should ban animals for a start

I've had AND am watching a movie , so posting with less than my usual astuteness :

• could be please keep 'benefits' and 'irrisponsible dogowners two seperate issues? Because they are.

• Wrt to backyard breeders and their buyers: many, many naice, middle-class, not feckless prospective dogowners buy from BYB. Sometimes because they have a respectable facade, sometimes out of ignorance of the issues behind BYBing and sometime because they don't care too much where there pooch comes from. I'd've been guilty of ignorance before doing more lurking than is good for me some lurking on The Doghouse.

So, yes, licensing for dog breeding too.

I am not sure how Gumtree/FB/small ads in local paper remain legal for anything alive tbh.

I read a really good book by a dog trainer who lived in a country with dog licenses, where he said that not only were there less dog attacks, there were also less attacks on dogs and less abandoned/mistreated dogs. Seems like a win-win if it can be enforced.

There is a licensing law in N Ireland and to obtain a licence you must now have your dog micro chipped.

Licence money goes towards dog mess bins etc

Only responsible owners obtain a licence - it does not stop the type of people that the OP is referring to keeping dogs and allowing them to get out of control.

Only skim read but I am also sick of it.

I am also sick of selfish owners thinking we should all love their dogs as much as they do.

Its almost a badge of pride to let people be scared of huge or hunter type dogs running up to them, " its OK they are friendly".

This is what a client of my DF said just before his Alsation sunk his teeth into my DM leg, and also what the lady said before her huge sheep dog turned on my little shiz zu and bit her.

If there was a clear number to call if people saw dogs they felt were out of control or aggressive, be so much easier.

I would also change the law so that if a dog attack on private property the owner of the dogs is charged as if they were the person that did the attack

Not a fan of that one as:

a) If I'm/family are being attacked in my/our home I expect the dog to react - Dog is absolutely useless as a family guardian if it doesn't protect the family. Have been in a situation that could have been so much worse for me if the dog hadn't reacted (he's not trained to do so but I'm bloody thankful he's willing to)

b) What about home boarding? Is it the owner of the dog or the person in charge of it at the time who is held responsible?

c) What if the dog was provoked into action? Dogs do not have the same thought process as us and if they can't get away they will react eventually whether through aggression or fear.

d) What about rescue dogs? Yes they are assessed prior to adoption but no one knows how a dog will react to any given situation on any given day. Should the rescue be charged as they deemed the dog fit for adoption and deemed the adopters as suitable?

Yes some people are too stupid/lazy to own dogs but why should those who are good dog owners be forced to foot the bill? The people who are too stupid/lazy to own dogs really shouldn't own any animal. Tighter laws should be made in regard to all pet ownership not just dogs.

Though I do think there should be similar rules for having children, you know nip it in the bud and all that [buwink]

I think that a change needs to start right down at the breeding level. Make it harder to breed a litter, and require that all puppies are microchipped and the breeders details remain on the microchip records for life. If a dog is dumped at the pound and the listed owner is not contactable, then the breeder needs to either take the dog back, or pay a fine. If they're responsible for the animal that they bring in to the world for life, then they might start rethinking how many they are producing.

The only time my German Shepherd has shown any signs of aggression was when somebody tried to break in through the window at 3am, whilst I was home alone (which I would be, due to living alone ). I won't lie, I was pleased he made such a horrendous, aggressive noise. And if the bloke had been bitten, well as far as I see it, he had it coming. He shouldn't have been half way through my fucking window at 3am. If the dog hadn't gone for him, I fucking would have. We were burgled a lot when I was a child due to where we lived, it's hard to articulate but it's incredibly threatening to have somebody force their way into your home, and as an adult it now makes me feel absolutely murderous.

I'm not in a position where anybody could enter my property legally without my knowledge (no friends with keys etc.,) but I now make a point of crating him if I'm nipping out and leaving a friend, plumber, neighbour or whatever in the house for any reason, regardless of how well they get on with the dog while I'm there. It's also useful to be able to put him there if people are visiting and aren't sure about the dog.

If I knew somebody was going to be entering the property without me being there, he would be crated.

Dogs are animals, and like any other animal, big or small, they require the proper care and management. Something as simple as having crates, a secure "dog room" or an appropriate kennel and run would have saved this young girls life.

Whilst size and breed are not entirely irrelevant, they are not an excuse either. I've had to remove a westie from my dogs face while the owner laughed at her "little man" taking on the "big nasty alsation". I've come across people who can't fathom why their BYB yellow lab rushes up to everyone it sees and barks... because "labradors are nice dogs!" They're not if you breed one dodgy temperament to another for the sake of a few £.

I generally stay away from threads like these, they scare me a little, as if a real witch hunt does get under way I imagine my dog will be the first to eat a government sanctioned bullet, simply because of his breed. Doesn't matter that he's a big soft wimp (bar people coming in through windows) or that a child is far more likely to be killed at the hands of another human, or their parents, or a car, or household accident than by my dog.

But I have had it up to the eyeballs with hearing about the irresponsible, the feckless, and down right anti social and criminally minded being able to own dogs. Everything from not picking up their shit, letting them chase livestock, horse riders, cyclists, the "he just wants to say hello" when he's galloping up a small child (of course the kid's scared you dipshit, your dog is eye level with him ). These utter nobs are scaring people, letting people get hurt, giving all dog owners a bad name and jeopardising everyone else's right to have a dog.

Sadly, since most of them already can't be arsed with basics like ID tags, micro chipping and insurance, what are the chances of them bothering with a license? Proper regulation on breeding would be a nice start. Both council and KC are bloody useless IMO.

Sorry for the epic rant . Probably just as well I don't live in a town or city, or I'd be chewing bricks!

Chasing, not at all. I for one found your post very thought provoking and you have made such a good point. If my family were in danger, if a man was about to rape me or one of my children, I would of course not stop the dog. Who can say they honestly would, really?

blessed
but why should your visitor face weeks of work with reduction of income and possibly losing job just because you chose to have a dog?
of course you should be liable. at the very least have an insurance in place that pays for everything (=medical treatment, hospital costs, loss of income...)
my mind boggles how you (and other dog owners) don't take enough responsibility.

CHILDREN are being killed.

Far more children are killed/injured by other pointless things.

Yes, there need to be laws/controls etc but the hysteria is ridiculous.

I can't believe that there is no "crime" when a dog attacks on private property. That is clearly ridiculous.

MousyMouse I think blessed was trying to point out complications where somebody is illegally entering your property to cause you harm, or where the dog is in the care of another (home boarding - does that come under the boarders insurance or yours, for example?). Not actually stating that dogs have a right/should be able to chomp onto anybody who goes into your house with no recompense.

At the moment the Dangerous Dogs Act is currently under review, and new changes are being brought in so that you will be prosecuted if your dog injures somebody on your property. Whilst there is (from the top of my head- It has been a while since I checked the proposed changes) or was an exemption for people who are breaking and entering, everyone else, from guests to family to posties, will be protected by the newer legislation. I imagine under the current laws the family who owned the dogs in the OP would be prosecuted for manslaughter. I'd link the legislation in case anyone is interested in the finer details but I have to nip out in a min, and I don't have the right link at hand, sorry!

Guard dogs (those trained for security work, whether owned privately or used by individuals in the security professions) are currently covered by a separate set of rules, and must be on a lead/under close control of the handler at all times. They are not allowed to 'roam' a property. If I remember correctly you're also required to have clear signs such as "Warning - Patrol Dogs working in this area".

I am always perplexed by the knee jerk reaction to situations like this. 9 deaths and people are up in arms.
As tragic as these are,why are people not frothing at the mouth over the approx 2500 deaths or serious injuries to under 16,s annually in the UK caused by cars?