Another child killed by a dog...

[tnorfotkcab]

Another poor child is killed by a dog.... We already know this is an XL Bully, don't even have to wait for confirmation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce35zkl9dg3o

It'd be interesting what the literature says about the long term benefits of dog ownership vs alcohol consumption.

More on a mission to advocate for evidence-driven policy. An increasingly vain hope in our increasingly binary, sensationalist and sound-bite world probably.

Chuffing heck you are on a heavy dose of misdirection bingo.

That's all very well but when did you last see a 'death by cockerpoo' headline in the papers? Death by XL bully is far too common and some of the stories feature dogs who were said to be beloved family pets, who suddenly turn on their owners... not just the ones who were ticking time bombs. Very scary.

I can't legislate for people who aren't bright enough to follow the thread of an argument. Soz

Yes you keep trotting out that guff.
The only dogs that need advocating for as they are known high risk for bites, mauling and death.

We get it, we get it, you think you are morally superior because you advocate for bull breed dogs.Yeah we see you.

Have you got a link to that, sounds unusual.

I don't drink, we go to a beer garden for a Pepsi and a Fruit Shoot and to enjoy the company of friends.

If anyone looked visibly out of control due to alcohol use, and I felt in danger, I would leave.

You can be around alcohol and be safe because a bottle of Carlsberg is unlikely to suddenly take flight and smash itself against the floor before stabbing itself into my neck.

A dog, bred for fighting? Far more likely to autonomously decide to go on a murderous rampage.

But you know that, of course. You just enjoy playing 'whataboutery', which is one of the lowest forms of logic.

It's not whataboutary to explore the actual causes of and contributing factors toward accidental and violent deaths. If there is a genuine desire to reduce or eliminate risk, then then the single most effective thing to do would be to ban alcohol. But we don't. We restrict it, we create legislation and we accept that there is some risk attached to the decision not to ban it. Arguably we don't really follow the evidence on alcohol, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't follow it in other areas.

You think that singling out some breeds will reduce risk. I don't. Neither does the evidence. There has been no particular drop in dog bites or fatalities since the implementation of the first tranche of breed specific legislation (and a large amount of the time covered was pre-XLs). Even if you argue - as you probably will - that "oh that's because they didn't ban enough breeds" the pit bull ban should have seen an enormous drop off in attacks. It didn't. I'm guessing you're a "seen to be doing something" type of person, rather than a "do something that works" type.

Three deaths in one week is insane. Fuck dogs, seriously. If this were any other animal, they'd be banned. Tigers killing three people in one week, we'd cage or kill them. Same should apply to dogs. Your rights to enslave a dog should not trump mine to be safer walking around.

I mean, dogs have a terrible carbon footprint so in the end they'll play a part in killing us all

https://www.dogexpert.com/fatal-dog-attack-in-california-on-infant-by-pomeranian/

More recently a jack russell killed a baby. Obviously exceptionally rare but some people are also more vulnerable than others.

As do cats, without as much option to reduce the amount of meat they eat.. And they’ll play havoc with the local wildlife. We’re all doomed

Actually, the "huge carbon footprint" argument is a bit of a red herring. It was based on studies that looked at how much meat dogs (and cats) eat, and giving this the same carbon weighting as the meat that humans eat. However, although all pet food (at least in the UK) is from livestock animals that are passed as "fit for human consumption", the actual parts of the animal that are included in pet food is mostly the bits that humans don't tend to eat...things like sheep lung, cows' udders, chicken gizzards, and lots of offal/organ meats that have fallen out of favour with most people in this country. If these cuts (known as "meat derivatives") weren't used as pet food, they would be incinerated. So, it isn't the case that lots of extra livestock is being reared to go into pet food, and thus making a huge contribution to global warming. Most pets are just eating the unwanted bits of livestock reared for humans. Therefore, their carbon footprint is much smaller than initially feared.

(I do, however, think pet owners should stop with all the Halloween costumes/Christmas blankets etc for pets - ridiculous waste of resources)

This isn't true. There is a MASSIVE market for pure meat killed specifically for cats and dogs.

What was the jack russell case, I take it abroad as well or was it here?

It was in shropshire

This is BS.
I know a bit about a province in an Asian country. The population is less than 2 million. Every monsoon season, tigers kill a couple of people (maybe 1, maybe 3 or 4). Say 1 person per million each year.

Tigers are still protected. A man-killer might be tracked and killed, but nobody is trying to wipe out the tiger population as a whole.

Oh bless your sad little heart. Still trying, eh Oona. Very trying.

No they won’t.

Haha true.

They definitely won’t be banned. Dogs have been socialised by humans for thousands of years and they do too many useful jobs. Not just guide dogs, but police dogs, sheepdogs etc.

That's bloody hilarious🤣

The BVA have researched this, and seem to disagree:
https://www.bva.co.uk/news-and-blog/blog-article/is-all-meat-in-pet-food-a-bad-idea-for-environmental-sustainability/

There may be the odd person who feeds their pet on lobster and sirloin steak, but for the majority of pets, who are fed on standard pet food rather than premium ingredients, this is what their diet consists of.

These are the ingredients on my pets' food