To think there should be more controls on dogs and more banned breeds

[Merryclaire]

Just seen on the news that another young child has been killed by dogs - that must be at least 4 this year in the UK - there have been a number more that have thankfully not been fatal. Always seems to be (most often) a US bully or sometimes a husky. Why are there not more dog breeds being banned (especially the bully)? And why is there not more noise about dog ownership rules in general being tightened up?
For the record I have always liked dogs but these regular child attacks scare me.

I just don't see how killing dogs who have harmed someone is ok, but it's not ok to put down a human who has done the exact same. A dog attacks my kid on the street? Put down. A man sexually abuses a child? Prison. Really fucking fair.

Once again, humans are humans, animals are animals.

If you want to argue for the death penalty for humans that is a different issue, but stating you don't understand the difference between a human and an animal is a bit embarrassing.

This is beyond silly.

A human is not the same as an animal in ethical terms, due to the capacity for higher order thinking.

I wouldn't say it, I don't feel any need to tell dog owners my view, what would be the point?

But I think people are at liberty to say 'dogs should be on a lead' whether on here or to a dog owner or anywhere else. The dog owner can reply how they want.

I’d think anyone who said “dogs should be on a lead” to me if my dog was under control and not doing anything to impact anyone else was a bit of a loon.
I wouldn’t engage with them, I’d just walk away and make sure I wasn’t in an isolated place with them, as that would ring my Possibly Dangerous alarm. Maybe report them to the park authority if applicable, in case they confronted someone vulnerable with their nonsense.

You mean this post?

“Until such point as the law changes, you are at liberty to do as you wish but you can't stop people saying they think dogs should be on leads.

Dogs should be on leads”

If so, it could barely be any clearer that is was a statement of opinion.

'Dogs should be on leads' statement. False one at that.

This is getting very tedious.

Correct, dogs should be on leads

Every time I think I’ve encountered Peak Insane Dog-Owner, someone comes along with something as deliciously batshit as “I would report people who want dogs on leads to the park authority”. Please do! Bet they could do with a lol.

The preceding paragraph makes it absolutely, abundantly clear that the poster is giving a statement of opinion.

(Just in case this needs specifying, the above is a statement of my opinion):

Did you miss the 'false one at that' part of my post?

More in the papers about this latest death.
Last year in a public place someone was attacked by dogs from the same property. This person was so badly injured, arm torn 'in two', that they passed out and was taken to hospital, for surgery, by a passer by. The police and injured person persued a criminal prosecution but it was dropped, by CPS?, due to 'insufficient evidence'. If that prosecution had gone ahead, this child might still be alive today
Why was the case dropped? It wasn't dropped by the injured person. How is a surgical procedure from a dog attack not evidence? Assuming its the same dog owner, why were they still allowed to keep dogs? And why hasn't anyone been arrested yet in the case that happened yesterday?

All brilliant points and it's disgusting this dog was not removed and dealt with at the time. But this is not the fault of your responsible dog owners. I do not want this to happen and have dangerous dogs allowed to roam around unchecked. My nans dog was on lead and attacked by an Akita. Nearly lost her. This dog had escaped a back yard it never left. Those people need dealing with, as does the dog. But me and my dog will not stop these things happening.

Now now, try not to misrepresent what people say so as to appear rational.

If someone came up to me minding my own business, in a public place, making unreasonable demands, I’d think they were very odd indeed. I’d be concerned they would turn that oddness in the direction of someone less likely to walk away or tell them to Fuck Off. So yes, if it was a monitored public place I would tell the managing body of that place that some nutter was marching about telling people what to do.

I know it’s difficult for dog haters to understand that dog owners have rights, but erm…..we do. So dog haters need to suck it up, I’m afraid.

No, I didn't miss it, I was just reiterating that dogs should be on leads. I was answering someone else.

People should be made to pay for classes (much like driving, ) before getting a dog and assessed.

Nah.. they shouldn't.

How would you do that? Hand them a range of dogs from “elderly Poodle” to “aloof security-trained Malinois” and see how they get on?

Decent breeders do assess potential owners, so no need to reinvent the wheel here. Just stop all the greeders and pedlars of bizarre crosses from selling to anyone and everyone who has the cash.

Now, now, I stand by my assertion that reporting someone to the park authorities or considering them a dangerous “nutter” because they think your dog should be on a lead is equally nutty. In the vast vast majority of public spaces, there’s really no need for dogs to be off lead. You can bang on about “oh, the dog needs it” all you like, but humans trump dogs and as long as there are out-of-control dogs, all dogs should be on lead. Take it up with the bad dog owners, not the dog haters. And leave the poor park authorities alone.

I reckon the dog licence would need to be about £1000 to pay for all this and associated enforcement.

Also we'd be fucked - our rescue dog never goes anywhere in public off his lead - because he's not trained to walk to heel etc and he is quite old. So I would fail the "test".

And until the law changes (which it won't, at least in my dogs lifetime) I am quite within my right to completely ignore your views and wave as I walk by you all the other frothers, frothing because I am playing ball with my dog.

I’ll try once more before conceding you are deliberately misunderstanding. I’ll even try a broader example.

I am in a park. I am breaking no laws, local or national.
Someone comes over to me and demands I do something that I do not have to do.
Absolute loon. Who knows what else they might start demanding, or who they might attack next?

But if you want to stomp about telling people what to do when they are breaking no laws then go ahead.

As an aside, I was once chatting to a park ranger about their tricky job of balancing all the needs of different park users. There was a group of dog owners with BogeyDog Du Jour breeds who used to use the park very early in the morning so they could avoid precisely the sort of anti-dog frothing displayed on this thread. The ranger politely told the complainer they had no grounds for complaint and a description of the complainer was circulated in the office in case of further trouble from them.

You simply cannot demand people do things just because you personally want them to do those things. You’ll just have to live with that, I’m afraid.

Many people are of the mind that all dogs off leash in public spaces are out of control

The dogs I see calmy plodding alongside their owners down the street in London, who sit or lie placidly and wait for their owners when they go inside a shop, seem very in control to me. But then, I don't think a busy London street would be the place to have an unleashed dog, if they weren't well trained, and I haven't seen one that acts like it needs to be leashed. Yet.