Another person killed by one of these dogs

[Schooldinners1]

When will people stop getting these dogs?

There have been so many stories of it going horribly wrong. I don’t know what people are thinking! Especially with vulnerable people in the property like kids and elderly people.

There are hundreds of dogs out there! Why choose to get these dogs that have a history of being unstable.

Its awful!

ARTICLE

Oops sorry for all the typos was rushing.

I think we know what WiddlinDiddlin is saying; we just don’t agree.

We don’t say ‘we need to stop people wanting to speed’ with no sanctions for speeding.

Trust me, I am all for improving peoples life chances and improving peoples lives in a more general sense, but this is something that is deeply rooted in a complex myriad of issues and can’t be resolved in the short or even quite long term, even if anyone had the will to take the bull by the horns.

So after five, ten years the death rate goes up again and it’s a different breed this time - ban that breed. You won’t hear an argument from me.

NOTANUM my thoughts exactly! I've got a good bruise and very swollen arm today.

So after five, ten years the death rate goes up again and it’s a different breed this time - ban that breed. You won’t hear an argument from me.

It’s not even that different, they were created from Pit Bulls which are already banned.

But if you keep banning breeds and the death rate still goes up, apart from satisfying your desire to ban breeds, what have you achieved?

If the goal is to reduce or indeed halt, death by dog - then that fails (as it already has done).

In the wrong hands, with the wrong breeding, and active training to create a dangerous dog, any dog over around 25kg and with a average to slightly wider than average head could kill. Humans are really spectactularly fragile creatures and a dog that gets a grip around your neck can kill you even if its so small you could fight it off.

We could easily see killer Labradors, Golden retrievers, Border Collies within a few generations.

So then what, eradicate all dogs - never going to happen no matter how much some people would want it.

@OutIander "You really are the problem if these are your solutions. Pitbulls and their ilk attack our of nowhere. Watch the videos. They are out of control vile beasts and no amount of human training will save innocent people. They need to be totally wiped off the face of the earth. It really is simple. Them and rottweilers, huskies, Akitas, etc. No need for any of those breeds."

Ah. Yeah. And your experience in working with dogs and studying dog behaviour is what? Oh, garnered from the Daily Mail and similarly sensible, reliable sources.

On the other hand I have worked with plenty - no dog, literally no breed of dog just 'attacks out of nowhere', dogs are incredibly predictable on the whole though some are easier to read than others.

You keep peddling myths though, it appears to make you very happy.

@WiddlinDiddlin I don’t have a ‘desire to ban breeds’; I DO have a desire to reduce the number of deaths. I do think that’s a bit of a goady statement, to be honest, as if my ultimate aim is to rid the country of dogs I personally dislike.

In the wrong hands, with the wrong breeding, and active training to create a dangerous dog, any dog over around 25kg and with a average to slightly wider than average head could kill.

Right. Except they don’t. Funny, that.

In the last thirty years, we have had sixty three deaths.

Our of those sixty three, breeds involved (some cases involved more than one dog)

Five Alsatians
One Alsatian X Chow Chow
Fifty five bull breeds (including SBT, PBT, American bulldogs and XL Bullies.)
Eight Rottweilers
One Cane Corso (and one crossed with a bulldog included above)
Two JRTs
One Lakeland cross
One Doberman
One husky

So sure people will leap on the JRT attacks (one of which was with a SBT) and the Lakeland attack - but I’m not seeing much evidence of these fragile humans slaughtered by spaniels and Labs and so on. No matter how much people push this idea that all dogs are equally dangerous, the actual fatalities just don’t support that.

Go watch some videos on fb groups abd pages such as Dog Bite Awareness. Many instances of dogs coming out of nowhere and attacking random people. The fact you don’t know this shows me how clueless you are. Embarrassed for you.

You think you know more than someone who works with dogs because you've watched a few fb videos? 😂 Embarrassed for you.

ItS nOt The brEEd iTs thE oWneR.

stupid.

So stupid, labradors never turn on their owners

ItS nOt The brEEd iTs thE oWneR.

I think there might be something up with your caps lock. Maybe a reboot?

Labradors due to their popularity, are increasingly suffering with poor temperament. Puppy farming breeders are producing bigger, heavier dogs with shockingly poor hips and elbows and of course pain also increases the chances of aggressive behaviour. Add in shit temperament to their generally over enthusiastic nature and poor social skills...

Labs are also bred to want to hold things in their mouths, grab stuff, hang on, keep hold of it.

Add to that labradors have a reputation for being easy going, good with the kids, excellent family dog (ooh does this sound familiar...) that barely need any training....

These factors mean that trainers like me are seeing more and more dodgy labradors who are very willing to bite people, very willing to approach strangers and their dogs and start fights.

We're not seeing deaths from labradors YET - but we could, easily, if they were the breed the 'I want a dangerous dog' brigade were pushed or encouraged to get. Breed them a bit bigger, select for the bitey guardy behaviour more and more... if you read what I actually said, again - we could be just a couple of generations away from dangerous Labradors (and other breeds, I don't want to pick on just labs!)

I've worked with a LOT of retrievers, mostly labs and goldens - believe me when I say, their temperament has been steadily worsening over the last twenty years and I have worked with MANY owners whose dogs have bitten them and others, including several sustained attacks (mostly rooted in resource guarding and fear, but poor genetics are the ultimate root cause).

@Elysiaxo (I realise you weren’t replying to me) but I do think there is a steadfast refusal to see things, there always is. People insist men are as much victims of domestic abuse as women (no, they are not) that white people are also victims of racism, and so on. It is almost like a weird extension of that, where to ‘demonise’ certain breeds is almost akin to a dog racism and we must pipe up with ‘but spaniels! / I know some nasty Yorkies / my neighbours chihuahua is awful!’

No, we’re not seeing deaths from Labradors. When ten deaths in eighteen months are attributed to Labs, I’ll be the first to support further action. Fair?

Or honestly, are you arguing that because there are poorly bred Labs, no further action should be taken against the breeds that are killing people? I honestly don’t really understand the point you’re trying to make.

So we ban this breed and then wait until things get so bad, and there are multiple deaths attributed to another breed... and then ban that one... and never look forward or take action to stop that cycle?

Thats what I am saying - we need to prevent deaths, breed bans are shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

We do need to do something, ASAP, we needed to do it 20+ (I am refusing to admit how long ago 1991 actually was!) years ago.

But the answer is not (or not just) doing the same thing we've done before, and expecting a different result.

Public focus is on the breed, we ban the breed, public all cheer, wahey, got rid of the nasty dogs, great, problem solved.

And then public pressure is off government, the demand for 'something to be done' is over, something has now been done, so they can sit back and applaud themselves that they've done a useful thing, the public approve, how marvellous.

And people are still at risk, a risk that increases each year as breeds evolve, it's not been stopped at all its just put the brake on it a bit.

Breed bans are an illusion of safety and action. They're also fucking expensive for the taxpayer but we're shafted every which way anyway there.

They are not effective at actually removing dangerous breeds from the population.

They're not effective at actually preventing the real problem - dog attacks on people.

But @WiddlinDiddlin , you haven’t put forward anything I can see that is actually going to stop people being killed by dogs. I really don’t want to appear argumentative here - I don’t think anyone is ‘wahey’ about it at all - but we do ban things that impede on public safety. We have to. I fully accept that this doesn’t make the public safe, but safer is a start.

I don’t see it as shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, particularly. More that maybe we’ve lost a few horses, but we can stop the rest getting out.

It's obvious some people do not have the skills to care for a dog adequately as this one was kept in a too small space with very little exercise. I know the area well and there are plenty of places to really exercise and stimulate a dog moments from that road. A dog licence would only be useful if owners had to demonstrate competency in adequate care.

We ban all breeds that are capable of mauling a child. Mauling. Not biting. It really is that easy. No one's desire to own a dangerous breed should come above our rights to walk safely around town or in the park.

Some breeds shouldn't be owned by anyone that doesn't have a dog handlers licence, and all dog owners should have third party insurance.

I don’t think this has to be over complicated. The vast vast majority of deaths are by bull/ pit bull/ bully types. Pit bulls are already banned. The legislation should be clarified and amended to:

1/ Clarify Bully XLs are pit bull types and therefore already illegal in uk

2/ Amend the act to add restrictions on any other strong and aggressive dog breeds such as the Staffordshire Terrier, Akita, Rottweiler and other powerful dog breeds. As in Spain, defined by dogs that weigh more than 20kg and have strong musculature, bulky heads and short necks, with strong jaws and a wide mouth.

Restrictions include license, always on lead and muzzled in public, reported immediately if escaped from owner’s premises.

I think we should probably licence people, if they meet certain criteria, to own dogs over a certain weight/height combination. Kind of like the DWAL system meets driving licence - different licence categories for different dog categories.

Things like a recent criminal record for violent, drug related, animal welfare related, domestic abuse related crimes = no licence for you. Ditto unsuitable housing.

First licence would be for 1 year. Subsequence licences would be granted for longer (as rechecking every licence every year would be so expensive) as long as the licence conditions are still met.

Probably would need exemptions for breeders of registered, health tested breeds, and for those whose work means they have lots of dogs. (This would cost out a lot of puppy farmers of mixed breeds or un-reg, unhealth tested etc etc, but only the bigger breeds of course, the tiny designer crosses would get a pass).

You would need the licence to purchase a dog, selling a dog without seeing someones licence and recording the licence number would be illegal.

That would simplify the seizure and assessment procedure for new 'type' dogs as its simply a height and weight thing not a subjective opinion thing as the current criteria are (yes, a dog can be deemed 'not type' by one DLO, and 'typed' by another later on.) This is what costs so much money, dogs sitting in kennels waiting to be determined type or not and then some of them waiting for a court hearing.

This way, a report of an illegal or licenceable breed at a particular address could be checked quickly - rather than waiting for something to happen, or umming and ahhing about whether the dog is illegal.

But there has to be the will and the infrastructure and the finance to actually police and enforce it.

I think the best way forward would be the banning of breeding any dog unless by a licensed breeder, who has been assessed by a veterinarian and qualified behaviourist as capable of understanding genetics and the importance of raising puppies properly.

I would also ban the sale of any dog unless via a registered rescue in which the dogs must also be assessed by a qualified behaviourist before rehoming. The amount of dogs going through Facebook or gumtree to suitable homes is ridiculous. Even worse are all those dogs that have bitten and are rehomed anyway, just no.

Finally, I would ban bullies and all relatives/type that look like
a bully (wide jaw, muscular structure, derived from a fighting background)
Sad for the very rare nice ones but necessary IMO. I work with dogs and they are bloody scary, I’m sick of being frightened of being mauled at work and its one of the first times in over 15 years many of us have felt like this. There’s always been the odd dodgy Rottweiler but this is almost every single one…

I’m also all for more accountability for all dog owners, not that I’m convinced there’s enough police to police it.

Still allows room for error, and people getting killed. I'd rather we just ban dogs capable of seriously hurting us. Then there's zero chance of getting killed by a dog (a particularly awful way to die).

I just don't see what's wrong with a nice lab, retriever, beagle, boxer, spaniel. All good, solid, generally non violent breeds.