Another dog attack, man killed, can this just go on?

[IthinkIamAnAlien]

Just on the news - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-66817795

Week after week, there is something wrong with dogs (and the owners) today, I grew up with them and this never, ever happened. Maybe because dogs were treated as dogs and not trophy animals. Awful for everyone.

I can't see why it's unreasonable to ask someone to prove that their assistance dog is properly trained, and is a genuine assistance dog, rather than a pet.

If you are a blue badge holder you have to show it to park in a disabled bay.

What is the difference? I don't understand the EHRC advice on this.

I'd have no issue with being asked 'what tasks does your dog do'.

The ADA in america allows for this, but the EA doesn't in the UK.

I would not be happy demonstrating my dogs training to someone who hasn't a clue about dogs, my particular conditions, or dog training. My dog is not a circus animal and some of his tasks he can only do in response to my health/behaviour, they're not 'cued' by a word/hand signal. Nor would I be particularly happy discussing my personal health details with a stranger.

Imagine if you could be asked 'why do you need a wheelchair' on entering a store or restaurant? That would be inappropriate!

I do think the information on what an assistance dog may do, what to expect and equally, what isn't appropriate, should be provided to businesses though.

It is appropriate to ask a dog/handler team to leave if the dog is out of control. I also think it would be appropriate if the dog was dripping with mud or the handler was allowing them to leave trails of drool everywhere (take a bloody cloth or don't have a breed that does this).

However, many businesses/staff don't know what certain tasks look like - my friends dog alerts her to passing out by blocking her from moving toward danger (roads for example) and if she ignores, by barking. Many people would see a dog barking at a handler and think the dog is out of control, rather than realise they are actively tasking.

Some dogs may need to actively ignore or almost argue with their handlers at times if they know something the handler doesn't - for example, my dog will indicate a BG drop by shoving his head in my lap but if I am not paying attention, he will absolutely put his paws in my lap and near on ram his face down my throat (very hard to ignore). I went for this indication as I prefer it to be barked at, but to a by-stander it may look like my dog is begging or just climbing on me!

I don't agree with our law that states a dog need not wear any identifying equipment. Sometimes it may be too hot for a vest or it may impede a dog from doing certain tasks, but a marked collar and lead sleeve affect nothing!

I also don't agree with dogs working off lead really, I get that in some cases the dog may need to work off lead - for example, a handler who may collapse or fit, could get a lead wrapped around their neck, or hurt the dog with it, but this is highly unlikely if you're simply holding the lead in your hand. Chances are, you'd drop it! I also don't like dogs taught to leave the handler and find help, the situations where that would be necessary are rare, the chances of the dog just looking like they're lost, being stolen, getting into an accident, are pretty high. If you need that level of care, you need a human carer!

Because people who work with animals generally love their jobs. These kinds of vacancies have hundreds of applicants.

That doesn't mean that anyone (at whatever pay grade) should be put in the position of having to deal with huge muscular dogs that have already caused significant injuries or deaths.

They should be euthanised by whatever means is safest at the site of these incidents - what on earth is the point of keeping them alive in these circumstances and putting others at risk to care for them? I am sure people are equally capable of assessing the 'type' of a dead dog (far more safely) as they are a live one, and the temperament of the dogs at these dreadful incidents is already indisputably unsafe.

They are taken (sometimes, not always) to secure kennels to be assessed. They are evidence, and some of that evidence is behavioural.

We actually do not do anywhere near enough of this, we don't have the facilities or the highly experienced specialist behaviourists. As a result it is highly likely awful human crimes are going unpunished because there was a dog to take the blame.

Unless a dog is proven not to have been the dog involved, they are euthanised.

The number of applications are completely irrelevant. No one should ever be put at risk while working especially with unpredictable and proven aggressive animals capable of causing injury

Many dogs that are siezed and taken to secure kennels have done nothing other than look a certain way, so no, they shouldn't all be euthanased unless proven to be a danger after an assessment.

That’s not what I was referring to, though - I am specifically talking about news reports after major incidents that say dogs have been taken to secure kennels after having severely injured or even killed people. I don’t think any police, vets or kennel staff should be put in the position of having to deal with them on an ongoing basis.

So it’s straight to pts then mmm

who's doing that then a vet, the council or even the police yeah look how that went in the past.

Yeah, what news reports say, and what actually happened, can be two very different things and they usually say that so the public know the dogs have been removed from the property/streets.

Unless there is doubt as to whether the dog/dogs they have did the deed in question, that 'secure kennels' is just a holding pen until a vet can be called to euthanise. If the dog can't be euthanised via injection, then it will be catchpoled and shot by a police marksman.

There isn't a long line of people doing either task there so sometimes a dog will wait in kennels until someone comes on shift, we're not talking luxury stays for many weeks here!

XL bullies are a worry.

Another attack in Halifax according to the Bully Watch account on X. Another dog killed and its owner had his leg ripped off, police then shot the dog.

That is what the secure kennels exist for though... to take in dogs that have been involved in an incident or seized by police. They are usually run by the police, and the locations are not made public.

They are not the type of kennels where a friendly sausage dog that has escaped their garden gets taken to.

'Secure kennels' are... any boarding kennel that provides a nice cheap bid to take in seized dogs.

To my knowledge, none of our police regions have kennels they can house seized dogs in, those are for their own dogs and even then, are few and far between.

These 'secure kennels' are of a very basic standard and simply need to have ways of preventing the general public from accessing/seeing seized dogs being held.

They may be the scruffy boarding kennels round the corner from you, I've had occasion to visit/work at (not for... at their location/venue) several.

People are not put at risk though, unless they choose to take stupid risks. Dogs are housed in kenne/run set ups where the dog can be lured indoors and shut in, outdoor area cleaned out, then vice versa, so the indoor area can be cleaned out. They can be fed, watered and their area kept clean of wee/poo (ish). That is it though they will not get exercise, play, interaction, any of the things the law actually states animals need.

For dogs who will be euthanised in a matter of hours this isn't a big deal.

For dogs who will linger in kennels for 6 months, 10 months, a year... it is a massive problem. (Note 'seized dogs' may not have been involved in an 'out of control' offence).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67464124

I'd have no issue with being asked 'what tasks does your dog do

Just to be clear I don't think you need to answer any questions - just have something that shows that your dog is a trained assistance dog. Presumably any assistance dog has some sort of certification. A guide dog is obvious, and a hearing dog usually has something saying it's a hearing dog too.

It's just something that stops entitled pet owners trying to take their dogs where they are not allowed (eg I was in a farm shop on the A303 last weekend which clearly said no dogs inside but of course someone had to take their pet in).

I also don't think there's anything in the Equality Act about this - it is EHRC guidance and they don't get everything right. As far as I know it's not been tested in court.

I know in our supermarket we went through a phase (just after Covid, when dog theft fear was at its height) of people bringing their dogs into the shop and, on being challenged, telling us that the dog was an 'assistance' dog or a 'therapy' dog. There was absolutely nothing we do could about this, because of course those dogs are allowed. But you can't say to someone 'pull the other one, it's just your pet' because that's discrimination. So there were dogs everywhere for a while. It's calmed down a bit now.

But that then puts genuine owner trained dogs and their handlers at a disadvantage.

All my owner trained teams COULD show you endless videos and lengthy conversations, diaries and so on of training sessions, the write up from their public access assessment etc - but that isn't a neat document you can carry around with you.

So i provide them a letter stating the dog has been trained to a particular standard (its the same public access assessment criteria that the ADUK charities use) and has passed, what date that was etc. But thats a letter from me, A Dog Trainer. Someone could feasibly fake such a thing.

Then you have people producing totally faked 'certification' cards and whatnot... and in the end it becomes totally pointless.

Or we have a situation where only those in reciept of a dog from an ADUK charity can have a dog, which means thousands of disabled people will not have a dog, as the criteria each charity has is pretty narrow, dogs are few and far between, waiting lists are super long even if you DO qualify, and many people won't, not because they shouldn't have a dog but because they need a dog that does multiple tasks that no one charity deals with (for example, no ones teaching hearing dogs to also detect blood glucose changes. No ones teaching guide dogs to do DPT etc etc.).

Not a week goes by and there is a report on a fatal or very serious injury because of a dog attack. And this importing rescues from abroad should be banned immediately.

Why?

Jesus f*cking Christ, what did I just read? You're clearly insane.

@QuizzlyBear you are clearly unbalanced. Unless you are winding us up.

I think you mean @Dotjones is unbalanced @caramac04

Yes I got it wrong and thought I had deleted my comment. Sorry.