thinking its now time to get super tough on dog ownership?

[adam7485]

after what has happened in wales to that poor little boy i can't help thinking its time to not jus bring back dog licences but before you buy a dog you should have to take an exam to prove that you can look after it properly. not only that but if your dog attacks someone not only should it be taken away from you but from that moment on your banned from ever owning dogs. anyone agree with me?

I think the breed of dog is a big part of the problem actually. Partly because of jaw strength and temperament and partly because certain breeds attract utter fuckwits with aggressive tendencies. Our local rescues are scoured out with staffies and pit bull crosses that, surprise, surprise, no one wants. Banning the breed or at least severly restricting access to it would save a lot of dog misery too.

I think we'd need to stop the breeding of dogs rather than license owners. I'd support a requirement for licensing for anyone that takes money for puppies. It won't stop unscrupulous people doing it but it would mean they couldn't openly advertise on Gumtree or wherever.

There's been a law in place across the UK since 2018...

It hasn't changed much of the unpleasant breeders activities. Again, only law abiding owners will abide and the rest will take their chances as it can be truly lucrative!

Look to new, wannabe dog owners. Educate them long and hard - and you'll still have problems with those that don't bother or care!

I'm not saying there doesn't need to be a change, there really does. But it will have to involve the attitudes of would be owners and breeders, not just another level of laws applied like a sticking plaster.

You can report that xl bully group on Facebook. You're not allowed to buy and sell animals on Facebook.

I think the breed of dog is a big part of the problem actually. Partly because of jaw strength and temperament

I addressed the issue of bite strength futher up thread, there are many common dog breeds with a much higher bite strength than bull breeds. In a list of 20 dog breeds with the most powerful bite, bull breeds will usual come in at about 12 - 15.

topdogtips.com/dogs-strongest-bite-force/

This list puts pit bulls at number 8 but the list is split into 2 and 5 of the dogs in the second part of the list have greater bite strength than the pit bull. The article makes it clear there is a limited amount of research on the subject and that bite strength is related to head size and shape so the figures given are generalising for different breeds. So a small example of a dog with a high bite strength may in reality have a lower bite strength than a large example of a dog breed with a typically lower bite strength.

I think temperament is determined as much by environment as genetics. A dog from a typically laid back breed can become dangerous and aggressive if not trained and cared for properly.

I agree with your argument that higher bite strength means there is greater potential for harm but my point is that there are dogs breeds we don't consider as dangerous as bull breeds, even though they have a more powerful bite, because they tend to appeal less to those who want a dog as a powerful and aggressive status symbol so are cared for more responsibly.

Banning breeds doesn't work, we've 20+ years of proof of that. You have to ban crosses of those breeds and that leads to dogs being typed by appearance. The more breeds you ban, the harder those who wish to own intimidating and dangerous dogs will work to hide them, own them, and of course, produce NEW types of dangerous and intimidating dog (see bully kuttas, bull terrs, alaunts, etc).

Licencing costs too much to run, and would be avoided by the people who cause the issue.

The answers are, education - starting in primary school, covering animal behaviour and how their needs are important, space must be respected etc - that can be worked into a variety of subjects through primary and secondary, and in secondary, covering things like 'don't go and buy a dog to make yourself feel safe when you leave home' in some areas.

The issue is people - we do not punish PEOPLE when things like this happen. The kid suffers, the dog suffers, the adults who were responsible are deemed in almost all cases as 'having suffered enough'.

I can quote you multiple cases where children died because adults CHOSE to place them in the care of people who had child aggressive dogs; large, fearful dogs; dogs trained to be aggressive to humans; dogs with no known background; dogs recently moved into the home.

All of those things are risk factors, add in other stressors like strangers in the home, fireworks going off for weeks on end, heat waves in summer - it is in some cases a recipe for disaster.

Many many dog owners believe they either know all they need to know about dog behaviour OR are wholly unaware there is anything they need to know. You only need to read Mumsnet to see people discussing dominance and alpha dogs and pack leaders to see how many people are totally clueless.

So we need to find a way to reach those people, and that is not easy.

We also need a massive overhaul of HOW we deal with such incidents - in this case I believe the dog was shot on site, not as a way to get the dog off the child (that just wouldn't happen) but because there wasn't anyone to handle the dog with the skills required.

What really should be done is dogs in such situations be seized by appropriately skilled handlers and taken to assessment centres to be evaluated by professionals.

This is NOT so that the 'dog can be saved' - this is so that the dog can be treated like the evidence in a criminal offence that it actually is at this point.

From such assessments it is possible to tell.. a/ that it was indeed a dog that did it, b/ was the dog trained to do it, or was it provoked or not, c/ was this a fluke incident or actually could this event have been predicted and avoided...

There have been cases where dogs have been used to cover up human crime.

For example, human bite marks passed off as dog bites - the dog in question was seized, his bite imprint taken, compared to the wounds, proven not to be the dog.

Dog bite marks used to cover other injuries - a childs body was found with bite marks, however comparison of the dog in question, the bite marks and the dogs behaviour showed that the dog couldn't be provoked into biting, unless in play.. and the childs body had injuries under the bite marks. In fact the child had died of injuries inflicted by adult humans and then they had enticed the dog to rag on the dead body to hide this.

Some of these things can be told from necropsy on the dog but many cannot and require a live dog.

At present not only do we not have the skilled officers on scene to handle such dogs, we do not have enough professionals to assess them (we have several, but not enough to cover the whole country), and most importantly we do not have appropriate facilities to house and assess such dogs humanely, in a way that would not alter their behaviour significantly (holding kennels for seized dogs under the DDA are awful and will turn the nicest dog dodgy in many cases).

As long as we keep punishing the dog, and not the people responsible for the dog, as long as we avoid educating people, and continue to euthanise and incinerate evidence without proper evaluation of it - this type of tragic incident will continue to happen.

I think the owner is being punished though? And I’m sure you agree that this particular dog should be euthanised and not rehomed? I do think it all stems down to any old idiot can breed a dog and there needs to be much tighter restrictions around that. Technology has massively moved on since the last time licenses were available so I am sure there much be a much easier, less time consuming and cheaper way to do it.

Licences, yes, exams no! Until you need both to breed children then no way should dog ownership be harder to accomplish than having a child

@adam7485

after what has happened in wales to that poor little boy i can't help thinking its time to not jus bring back dog licences but before you buy a dog you should have to take an exam to prove that you can look after it properly. not only that but if your dog attacks someone not only should it be taken away from you but from that moment on your banned from ever owning dogs. anyone agree with me?

a compulsary licence should be required, but only acquired on production of a valid insurance policy, and the info put onto the micro chip in the dog. not that it would stop such attacks, but it would mean that dogs with any of that could be destroyed quicker

Completely off-topic but at one time dog licenses and marriage licenses used to cost the same: 7 shillings and sixpence (37½ p for anyone under 50). Which gave rise to a musical hall song called "She cost me seven and sixpence, I wish I'd bought a dog".

All these people saying "ban all bull breeds!" - it's already illegal to own certain "dangerous" breeds of dog in this country and yet we still have fatal dog attacks.

Banning breeds doesn't actually change anything. If all "bully" breeds disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, it wouldn't actually make a difference.

Oh definitely and they should be made to take their dogs training for call back, and should have to get them used to fireworks and other things that scare the life outta them.
So over dog owners that think everyone else is responsible for making sure their dogs are ok when they should be the ones training them for everything.

This was done by an American Pitbull. American pitbulls are already banned. I have a staffy, who is the sweetest dog I have ever known and most likely to lick you to death. Please, don't generalise because you don't like the 'look' of a dog

@number87inthequeue

There is already a requirement to have your dog chipped so it can be traced, so with this and the prices that some people pay for their dogs I don't think that a simple licencing requirement will make much difference unless there is some sort of educational requirement too.

I think there should be a requirement to undertake some training before you can own a dog, and that this should have to be renewed every few years. As well as dog welfare etc I think it should cover your responsibilities as a dog owner including making sure everyone is aware of the current legal responsibility to have their dog under control at all times. I encounter lots of very well meaning people walking their dogs who allow them to run off beyond where they can even see, despite them having very poor recall and poor training (eg. jumping all over anyone in their path). This should include a reminder that dogs are animals, and so can never be fully trusted not to bite whatever the breed or usual temperament. Any dog can feel unwell or be scared etc and may bite, especially someone that they do not know well and who does not recognise signs that they are unhappy with being petted etc.

I also think we as a society should work on removing the stigma of dogs wearing muzzles. If properly trained and fitted, dogs can wear muzzles very comfortably (and can eat/drink/yawn etc in them) when in public or around small children etc. My dog is a nervous rescue, and although he has never bitten anyone I am very aware that I can't guarantee how he would react if, for example, a stranger's child tried to hug him. So he wears a muzzle when we are out and we have things in place at home to ensure that strangers are kept at a distance. Yet I am frequently stopped in the street and lecture on why he I should not be forcing him to wear it and how sad/scary it makes him look (the reality is he associates his muzzle with treats and walks, so loves it, he looks sad and scared because a stranger is staring at him and pointing a finger at me!).

May I ask what kind of muzzle you got and how long it took your dog to get used to it? Our dog is a rescue, he is ok with other dogs 80% of the time, but we have to keep him close on a short lead for most walks just in case. I'd love him to have a little more freedom as he's getting less reactive, and if he had a muzzle I'd feel more secure about approaching other dogs. Also when we have visitors - he's ok most of the time but has barked at the odd person, we are working on how to introduce him to people as the trainer shows us but it's a long job and it can be stressful having people round

[quote MrsDThomas]@rrhuth and ensuring the breed is not a banned one.

I saw a video yesterday on Facebook of a bloke who trained his dogs (and they were big beasts like this presumed dog) and the trainer was a big muscular bloke, and the size of the dog beside him. I don’t see why you would need a dig like this, apart from to intimidate people.

What’s wrong with a lab, jack russel or a cockapoo![/quote]
I have big dogs. I'm an average size woman. I don't want to intimidate people, and my dogs are well trained. Big dogs are just as loving as small dogs, stop assuming 'big dog = aggressive owner' If we have bother from other dogs it's just as likely to be a small yappy one than another big dog.

And, there's no such thing as a dangerous breed, just bad owners.

Dog ownership does need to be regulated, and this starts with regulating breeding. As much as I'd like to see licences reintroduced the first step is stopping indiscriminate breeding. My dogs are big breed, pedigree, and both came from Dogs Trust. To rehome a dog you have to pass assessments, but to buy a puppy you just need cash. It's all wrong.

Completely agree with the comment about banning puppy farms.

This was done by an American Pitbull. American pitbulls are already banned. I have a staffy, who is the sweetest dog I have ever known and most likely to lick you to death. Please, don't generalise because you don't like the 'look' of a dog the problem though is that too many people buy staffies because they look hard. So while yours might be a lovely family pet people do buy them as status symbols and for fighting and prime them to be aggressive.

And a staff’s jaws are such that when they do bite they cause significant damage.

While I totally agree that not all staffies are dangerous, fact is that if you’re going to buy a certain breed of dog then you do so in the knowledge that that breed comes with a reputation.

Let’s be honest, there are probably American pit bulls who aren’t ferocious attacking monsters, but we have generalised the breed because of why they have initially been bred. Nobody would say “please don’t judge all American Pitbulls, mine is lovely,” because they have knowingly and willingly obtained a dog with the reputation it has.

And a staffie looks remarkably like a pitbull, and at the very least there are considerable similarities. So when you buy a certain breed you need to think about whether you’re prepared to potentially be stigmatised for it.

@Trixiefirecracker

I think the owner is being punished though? And I’m sure you agree that this particular dog should be euthanised and not rehomed? I do think it all stems down to any old idiot can breed a dog and there needs to be much tighter restrictions around that. Technology has massively moved on since the last time licenses were available so I am sure there much be a much easier, less time consuming and cheaper way to do it.

I said quite clearly, I don't think dogs that have killed people should be saved, there may be odd exceptions to that rule (knocked over a frail adult being silly, things like that perhaps). My point is the dog and its behaviour are potential evidence.

A dead dog cannot show you behaviour, therefore evidence may be lost by immediately euthanising. In some cases there is no other option as the dog cannot be handled even by an expert, but in many cases, if we had the facilities, it could be taken and assessed first.

I don't know what is happening in this case, but historically, owners and responsible adults are NOT held legally responsible, no.

Ellie Lawrensons grandmother was absolutely responsible for her death, as were her parents, as was the dogs owner.

The only one of them who had any legal punishment was his owner who was not present at the time, and he did a short (8 weeks) prison sentence for owning an illegal breed.

Ellies parents knew the dog was dangerous and knew the dog had attacked an older child prior to letting Ellie stay there, which had resulted in hospitalisation.

They also knew that the dog was involved in dog fighting, that the dogs owner was a dealer. There were drugs and drug money in the house.

They and Grandmother knew the dog was dangerous and trained to be so by its owner.

Three people made choices there to put that child at risk of injury or death from an illegal breed trained to bite people.

None of them were punished for making that choice.

That is just one example, there are many many more. Ellie Lawrensons case was a landmark case in dog related deaths as there was actually a court case to find whether her grandmother was responsible.

To this day I do not understand how they found her not guilty, she was the adult in charge of both dog and child, she was legally responsible for the safety and well-being of both and the actions of both.

She knew the dog was not to be let in the house, was aware the dog had severely injured an older child and she either let the dog in or failed to secure the dog out so the child could not let him in.

There are plenty of other examples unfortunately, though in the grand scheme of things, dogs killing children is incredibly rare.

The common denominators are:

Poor social/economic background
Dog from dodgy sources
Dog with unknown background
Dogs trained to be aggressive
Dogs with other stress factors - new environment, new people, environmental stress like fireworks or heat or storms
Children left unsupervised with dogs
Dogs not familiar with children
Dogs with owners present drunk or under the influence of drugs

I am struggling to think of many cases where some or indeed most of those did not apply.

And, there's no such thing as a dangerous breed, just bad owners. but certain breeds are bred for their potential to be aggressive.

The police don’t use labradors as police dogs for instance they use GSD’s, because GSD’s have more of a guard dog quality about them.

Companies who have guard dogs don’t use retrievers because retrievers are mor like the family pet. Instead they use Rottweilers who have the potential to inflict a huge amount of damage and who at the very least look incredibly menacing to someone planning to break in.

There’s no such thing as a dangerous breed, but several breeds have the potential to be more dangerous.

I think there should be some sort of test to get a licence for a dog. Like the driving theory test but for responsible pet ownership.

Anyone with a dog should have to pay for it to be professionally trained also, the trainers would be able to weed out the animals that are untrainable/aggressive.

Should also be a lawful requirement for all dogs to be spayed too.

I also think though that to avoid dog thefts/ illegal pet ownership the value of dogs should be made to 0.
It would stop a lot of the designer breeding too.

Win win?

It's a nice idea in theory but in reality if there were more restraints on who owned dogs then fewer people would have them. This would be fine in the long term of course but we currently have many dogs without homes already so making more of them homeless would be really awful.

(Not 0, but you know… dogs shouldn’t be worth thousands)

A dead dog cannot show you behaviour, therefore evidence may be lost by immediately euthanising. In some cases there is no other option as the dog cannot be handled even by an expert, but in many cases, if we had the facilities, it could be taken and assessed first. why? There’s nothing to be achieved by assessing such a dog. Nobody should be responsible for passing a dog who has killed someone on to another home, any home. If they do so then they are equally culpable if the dog goes on to attack someone else.

The dog needs to be euthanised. We don’t need to know why it did what it did. It’s a dog. It’s not some kind of human being who needs to be psychologically assessed.

Most of us agree that a murderer should spend the rest of their life behind bars. But in the case of a murderer, they know why that is. They know what the’ W done. But a dog lives in the here and now. You can’t tell it tomorrow why it’s being punished, it moves on from what it did within seconds. As such you can’t imprison it, and you shouldn’t rehome it, so the only option is to euthanise it.

This particular dog wasn’t even euthanised it was shot. That’s how aggressive it was. We don’t need to see its behaviour after that.

We could ban the breeding of bull type dogs , have laws regarding leashes , bring back licenses etc etc but the bottom line is that this tragedy is down to an irresponsible human for owning a dog that they didn’t take time to get to know and train properly and for leaving it alone with children. Ain’t no amount of legislation is going to stop idiots from being idiots.

@violetanemone

I think it's a nice idea to bring back dog licenses, but unfortunately the police/ government do not currenlty have the resources or aptitude to actually enforce anything like that. They won't do it because if they do it means they will have to follow through and enforce it.

This 👆 There would be no magic solution to any problems brought about by a dog licence. It would be a tax paid by dog owners (as it was last time we had one). The Police and our Councils don’t have the resources to check them, and the type of owners who don’t get that you don’t keep a nasty dog in a family home, or have any dog unsupervised with small children, wouldn’t buy a licence anyway! 🤷‍♀️