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.

Yep and I make sure my dog is never in a position for him to react to anything as I am not an idiot

Your dog being on a lead would ensure kids can play football in a park and not have to eye up your dog wondering if it is going to burst their ball. Having your dog on the lead means people having a picnic can relax. I know you won’t believe this, but to many people having your dog off a lead in public is just plain antisocial.

@wonderwoman26 a dog attack is not an ‘accident’ as the dog decided to attack - it didn’t just fall over and land on its victim with its jaw open.
At no point did I even make a mild suggestion that owners deliberately encourage dogs to attack - however they have usually been negligent and failed to adequately train and control their dog.
I find it shocking that so many people care more about their ‘rights’ to do whatever they please with their dogs than they do about people being attacked and sometimes killed.
It reminds me of the smoking ban when non smokers were often told by selfish smokers that they should leave if they didn’t want to subject to second hand smoke.
If you are a responsible dog owner then you should also want better laws in place to protect everyone (including you and your dog) - and you will make sure your dog is well trained and under control. The fact you want a free for all suggests you are indeed a bad owner.

We aren't near kids playing ball or picnics. I am sorry but I am doing nothing wrong walking my trained dog off lead. It's the people with untrained dogs they should have the issue with not me and my dog minding our own business

It's the fact that anybody can buy a dog from anyone and so many are unsuitable for it. A large dog in a small house with inadequate training, little to no exercise will be unhappy. Animals (&humans!) Are far more likely to become aggressive when unhappy. Pair that up with the anxiety dogs have when there's shouting and general stress in the home(exacerbated often if the dog does something like chew what it shouldnt)=recipe for disaster.

Somewhat unrelated but I have a large dog and I'd never trust her with a child despite the fact she's never hurt one.

A few weeks ago I was in a pub and a very young toddler came running towards us. I got up and hurriedly moved away with dog, baby chased us, I said to him 'don't come this way, my dog might bite you' (again I don't think she would! Just child friendly language to tell him to not come near) and he continued until he'd literally backed us into a corner and I had nowhere else to go to prevent him coming up to us. Luckily a parent appeared at this point.

Where was she letting her child run amok.

The government aren't going to monitor dog licensing or call for licensed breeding. Banning breeds isn't the answer, any dog can turn and larger breeds can kill. But if they're well looked after and trained carefully it is so much less likely. People just don't and won't do it.

I agree with the PP who said banning letting dogs off lead in public would make things worse. Dogs need exercise to be happy. I'm careful about when and where my dog is allowed off lead but if I never did she'd go Stir crazy , understandably. A stir crazy dog isn't going to be well behaved.

If you do t want your dog to go ‘stir crazy’ exercise it in your garden. If your garden isn’t big enough, don’t get a dog. You don’t have a ‘right’ to get a dog.

Nah. I'm good thanks. I'll continue to not break the law and exercise him off lead like I have for the last 10 years.

I'm a dog owner myself and have always been obsessed with dogs - legit prefer them to people. I personally think you should have to have a licence to be a dog owner, just like you do with driving a car. A car in itself isn't dangerous but if a reckless/problematic/inebriated/inexperienced person gets behind the wheel then there can be serious repercussions.
It's the same with dogs. It's not the breeds that are the issues, it's the owners. The reason there's a "coincidence" among apparently violent breeds is bc they're overbred or "on trend" and a lot of the time, they're not properly trained by bad owners who get them for status or to look tough. This isn't the case with all XL Bully owners, or other similar breeds, but it can be in some instances.
A licence, IMO, would prove you're sensible and serious enough about caring for a dog and would also leave you easier to track down should there be any issues. Too many horrible people get dogs and breed them to fight or use some poor little one as a "bait dog" to train the others up with, and it's vile. A licence system could be mutually beneficial for dogs and their owners. Just my opinion tho!

I won't be putting my dogs on leads because some random tells me I have to.

I will, however, keep them away from picnics, have them to heel going past football and rugby matches, call them to me and put them in a sit when bikes approach, keep them on leads around stock, and train and train and train endlessly off the lead (sometimes at a considerable distance from me) as well as on.

As for truly dangerous dogs... I don't know what the answer is. There are breeds of dog that are much likelier to do serious damage or kill than others, but any ban just seems to lead to breeding that keeps the traits while altering the appearance.

All the usual dog versions of NAMALT posts again. (Not My Dog).
Dogs are killing children. But it's no different to falling trees of course ...

Out of interest, so many posts saying banning dogs hasn't worked? How do you know? Maybe the bans have saved loads of lives? It hasn't stopped it no, but unless you can travel between realities you can say it's done nothing.

There's obviously more work to do. It's not a vote winner is it? So it will take a lot more deaths for it to become high on the agenda. How bloody sad.

To many people having your dog off lead in public is just plain antisocial

To many people, teenagers gathering in groups in public is antisocial. Should every group of teenagers be moved on and dispersed?

I can imagine this on the news one night
'From now on, only people with more than an acre of land are permitted to own a dog '.... as if.

Hamburg seems to have got it right:

www.angloinfo.com/how-to/germany/hamburg/family/pets-animals/local-regulations

Teenagers are people, of value to wider society. No comparison.

Completely agree there needs to be dog licensing but it needs to be subject to education and home checks.

I like dogs and we have one. My kids are bloody terrified of dogs generally though due to too many incidents with other peoples’ out of control dogs out and about. Dog jumping on buggy, dog knocking kid to the ground, dog running up and stealing food, dog bursting football…it goes on. And I have never had an appropriate apology or acknowledgement from the owners of these dogs. Just minimising the issue and essentially victim blaming - ‘oh he’s only being friendly’ etc. It makes me furious.

Disproportionately it is kids who pay the consequences of crappy dog ownership too - getting covered in faeces where it hasn’t been picked up, and through being terrorised, hurt and even killed. Agree it all needs a serious looking at.

From the dogs perspective, no it wouldnt have been an accident, it would have been a choice. From the owners perspective, I can't imagine any situation in which a human pet owner would actively encourage their dog to attack to kill a child. So putting stricter regulations on dog owners would have no bearing.

As pointed out by PP - dog attacks that end in death are usually triggered by something, no dog attacks for the fun of it. In this circumstance i believe another poster said it had come to the family a week prior - if this had been down a shelter route - the home would have been carefully vetted and not placed in a home with visiting children should it not be deemed appropriate around children. Infact most shelters don't allow dogs to be placed in homes with children under 10 as a standard rule. If it has come from a random friend/stranger - then yes completely owners responsibility to inform the new owners of any concerns - if there is any. If there has never been signs of aggression before, how can you give a warning. And that is not uncommon.

The whole point of my arguement, is that you are effectively trying to control the uncontrollable. It is not certain which dogs will be dangerous and which won't, so the only means of control would be a blanket ban - which will never happen, but even if it did - where would it end? Horses throw riders off and kill them, but that's deemed acceptable and not such cull of horses is being called for.

Dogs are ANIMALS, certain have been bred (rightly or wrongly) to bring out the best of their particular strengths and just like anything in this world, the bad people have turned their hand to breeding dogs to perform to their strenghts (such as fighting). That doesn't mean every dog should be tarred with the same brush, that every dog should be on a lead at every opportunity.

Of course it is horrific that anyone would die in such a horrid nature, but there is little to no-way to effectively police or manage human actions (else murder, rape, terrorism also wouldnt exist) to breed/manage safe dogs. And without a blanet ban of dogs - this will continue. All we can do is look out for ourselves and our familys.

This

What about the ones who bully, mug people, destroy play areas, deal drugs, vandalise cars……?
I mean, I know they are the minority but then so are the out of control dogs.

That group of teenagers might be on a sponsored litter-pick, but y’know……feelingzzzzzz I demand they be dispersed!

Sounds pathetic, yeah? So does all whining about a dog in a field half a mile away that may or may not chasing the ball and come and savage someone

Teenagers are needed for society to survive. Even ‘good’ dogs are totally and utterly unnecessary, just the whim of the owner to get one.

But I’m not saying they shouldn’t be part of society. Just that if we’re going around banning things that make us nervous on the basis that a small minority have done bad things, why not stop teenagers meeting in groups? “I don’t like it, make it stop” being the foot-stampy little reaction based on a skewed risk assessment.

Animals are animals, humans are humans.

I actually can't believe we are discussing this.

Human rights are for humans only. Animals have rights, but not human rights, due to not having the required mental capacity to exercise said rights. Obviously.

It is the other way around! @magnoliaabomination has got it wrong. I know this park well and the small fenced off area is for dog owners and dogs, I imagine it's because dogs are meant to be kept on a lead in the rest of the park and this area is where they're allowed off a lead.

My dog is necessary to me. The teenagers that smashed our van windows? Not so much.

But I don't put all teenagers in the same bracket. So dogs shouldn't be either.

There are twatty teens and there are twatty dog owners.

@Fairisleflora thanks for sharing this - I really like how a dog has to be on lead unless it has passed an obedience test. That seems fair to me.
And ’dangerous’ dog breeds must always be on a lead or muzzled out in public. Some won’t like that, but it would make a lot of people feel safer.