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.

It is because humans and animals are different.

Animals have rights - but they clearly do not have human rights due to not having human mental capabilities.

Your argument is nonsense.

Horse owners can't exercise their pets "off lead" in public spaces. They need to own or rent sufficient space to provide the horse with off lead exercise, livery yard businesses generate income for lots of farmers needing to diversify. A paid for doggy playground would work for those with inadequate space who really want to own a dog.

I'd happily put my dog through an obedience test.

I cannot stand dogs but I don't think banning any breed will help at all.

It's the owners at least 99% of the time of the dog who are the problem not the dog.

People like my neighbours who should never have had a dog, left it in the back garden 99% of the time where it would throw itself in a foaming frenzy at my fence if it so much as saw my child look out of his bedroom window - fence was seriously damaged with the dog trying to get through it.
Same with any poor person passing by on the public footpath at the bottom of their garden - dog would attack the fence growling & barking trying to get to them.
Their response to this behaviour was "Oh, he's more scared of you....."
They also rarely walked him because "He's a handful"

When they had a baby the dog disappeared within days of it coming home.
The dog went mental at the new person in the house & then it was gone.

In all the years of having that dog, they never stopped it from trying to attack anyone who came near, never did anything but ignore the problem & claim the dog was 'a big softie really'.

It's only luck it didn't bite someone, but I think a decent dog owner would have trained that dog not to be so aggressive.

It's owners who need licencing & to have completed training courses/be monitored to be sure they can actually raise a dog who is not a danger to society.

All dogs are in a different category to all humans. One group is human and one group is animal. Why the fuck are we even having this conversation when it is obvious?

You are trying to use your human rights to justify the rules that would be applied to your dog. Your dog does not have those rights in and of itself. If we are going o argue about your human rights, I would argue that you have the right to keep a dog, but not for that dog to have access to every space on an equal footing to humans. Many animals are limited to certain settings for various reasons. Your dog is an animal.

I’m not saying teenagers shouldn’t have rights. I’m saying if groups of teenagers make some people nervous because of the actions of a minority of teenagers, then why not ban them hanging around in groups?
I don’t really think they should be dispersed. But it does highlight the truly nonsensical calls for all dogs to be on a short lead everywhere.

I think you’ll find the right to exercise is something dogs have, btw.

As electricmouse said, a major problem is that no matter what legislation's in place, the very worst owners just won't do it

That's why I asked how anyone would suggest it be enforced, but there don't seem to have been any answers

It wasn't me that started it. I was just saying that my dogs means more to me than the arsehole teens that run rampant.

I am well aware my dog is an animal.

He is also allowed to be walked off lead. So people can stop telling me I shouldn't.

Can we all just agree that some dogs are bad, some are not.

Some teenagers are bad, some are not.

Some posts are bad, some are not.

Yes that seems pretty comprehensive and would be welcomed by me.

There is no way for it to be enforced.

I'd get a license no problem. But the shit dog owners won't. Some don't even walk their dogs so know one will know they have one until it kills one of their own children or a visiting one.

I don't think banning them is the answer. I think it has to be about managing the owners rather than managing the dogs.

Irrespective of how you feel emotionally about your dog, it is correctly less valued by society than a human.

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.

Not having a licence means a dog can be removed. It is enforceable, obviously.

The problem is with dog owners who should never be permitted to keep any dog, let alone a powerful or aggressive breed. I’d be in favour of bringing back licenses (we have them for cars and firearms). Make the license expensive enough and the fines hefty and it may even pay for itself. And if that prices the inadequate owners out of dog ownership so much the better.

They shouldn't though. You THINK they should.

Out of control dogs should yes, but ones who are trained and have recall are allowed to be off lead. Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true

Are you including working dogs in your judgement? Guide dogs, therapy dogs, sniffer dogs, police dogs, bomb/drug detector dogs, sheep dogs and farm dogs?

And if know one knows they have an unlicensed dog?

It would be enforced in the same way as any other law. How about random spot checks by police or community-appointed officials with large fines for those in breach? How about custodial sentences for those found to have bred and sold a dangerous dog breed ‘down the pub’?
In general harsh punishments for those who break the law would be a deterrent for most.
Yes, there will always be some idiots who don’t follow the law, and tragic incidents as a result - but if that was a good enough reason to not have rules in place, then imagine the consequences for every aspect of life.

Its not illegal for a dog to be out of control. I.E your dog is sitting in a park and not coming back to its owner calling it.

It’s against the law to let a dog be dangerously out of control anywhere.

Dangerously being the key word and one that is clearly defined. It injures someone or it worries someone that it could injure them. The latter needing to be realistic.

The list of killer dogs is very interesting. Very few breeds amongst the many 100s of dog breeds which clearly shows that the very large majority of dogs are totally inofensive.

There are a lot of dog bashing threads on here and I don't like when it ends up like that but as a dog owner I agree there need to be more restrictions- not on breeds but on owners. We have a rescue and had to fill out a lengthy application and have an interview, but anyone can buy from a breeder.

People who buy dogs thinking it'll just be fun and easy not only leads to dangerous situations but also mistreatment, often unintentionally but many people just don't understand what's involved.

My husband is a groomer and the number of dogs owned by well-intentioned people who just have no idea is ridiculous, they bring them in with matts and gunky eyes and dirt caked in their paws and the poor things are so uncomfortable. If they don't understand basic hygiene how do they manage with training safe behaviour.

Breeders need to be regulated so that buyers can be too. You shouldn't be able to get a puppy for a cute present and then not know how to deal with it

So it is a grammar/sentence construction issue you have?

I think should is perfectly reasonable in my sentence. Your dog should be on a lead. Your dog should be licenced. Your dog should be banned from many public places.

Do you think I don't understand the legal situation? I understand those things are not legally required at present. I think they should be legally required and until such time as they are I think people should do them anyway.

that is an issue with every crime. What if no one knows I stole a diamond necklace?

I think they should be legally required and until such time as they are I think people should do them anyway
We all think many many things that are totally irrelevant to others. That's why we have laws. That's why most dog owners follow them and don't care one iota what people like you think the law should be.

I see the ‘rights’ thing has been gleefully and deliberately misinterpreted.
My mistake for expecting reasonable debate on a dog bashing thread. 🙄

Situations that make someone fearful should be banned, is the issue.
Teenagers in groups.
Cows in fields with calves.
Bullocks in fields.
A path by a river with a steep drop that has eroded but right of way not blocked.
Rollercoasters.
Motorways.
People allowed gun licenses (after all, there have been cases where shootings have occurred).

It’s not a case of Animal Rights vs Human Rights. It’s a case of not being a wet nellie who wants all risk eradicated from life.

I sometimes suspect that the more fervent dog haters are jealous of the bond between dog and owner. Maybe they know they lack the capacity to form a bond based on training and trust with an animal, I dunno 🤷‍♀️