A fourteen year old girl has been killed...

[JustGiveMeFiveMinutes]

...mauled to death by four dogs.

RIP

And strangely enough, they don't bother the cat when in the garden, it's only when in the house that the mayhem starts. The cat often comes with us when we go for a walk round the block.

'several friends of my sword-owning do a'

sword-owning friends do.

I never let my dogs off the lead and always clean up after them. If you want your dog off lead take them to a proper dog park (although they are few and far between). It was a JRT that killed ababy last year - but in reality cars kill far more children every year and although I am not taking away the horror of it I think a cull/ban is not the answer but stricter controls on ownership. Look at the outcry about culling foxes - in reality there has been what a handful of supposed attacks compared to dog attacks - something does need doing to make people safer from irresponsible dog owners and their ticking time bombs but I don't think a ban would work.

Ok, muzzle in public except for designated dog areas. But we have got to go further than that surely, given that as far as i recall, the children killed in last five years were killed in someone's home.

Westie - I thought mine was the only cat who came for a walk with my dog...but she only comes to biff the dog when I am not looking.

That sounds a hideous existence for any cat, and you seem indifferent to its fear.

If I were indifferent to it's fear, which is only when they try to chase it, I wouldn't have taken steps to ensure the dogs are contained in one area of the house whereas the cat has free range and can come and go as it pleases and completely avoid any dog contact if it chooses. The dogs cannot go upstairs at all, the cat had his own entrance constructed which takes him straight up there, where he's fed and sleeps. The only time he comes into contact is the once in a blue moon occassion when he sneaks into the dog area, chickens out and finds himself cornered on top of a bookshelf.

Yes, I agree but dogs in the home are a different issue and that discussion needs to be between dog owners and the government.
Start by controlling them in the public domain.

Westie - I thought mine was the only cat who came for a walk with my dog...but she only comes to biff the dog when I am not looking.

:o Mine hides in the bushes and jumps out on the dog and then legs it again further up the route to his next ambush point.

I don't think it is a 'discussion'. Gov says -you are prohibited by law from owning dogs you cannot control, you will not exercise or train or feed properly. We will send it dog wardens to check, you must licence your dog, neuter it and train it. If you won't do that, you can't have a dog.

Why have designated dog areas? Public spaces should be for people, not bloody dogs. Muzzles, licences (costing a lot of money), more dog wardens and microchipping are the answer. And if the owner doesn't comply, then it's bye-bye doggie and a lifetime ban on owning another one. Dog-owners can't control their dogs - that much is clear, given the number of dog attacks every year. So the state should step in and exercise that control that is so obviously lacking in the owners.

Sounds reasonable to me Spero.

Here's a question for you, someone said have a dog pts and charge the owners with assault if the dog attacks on its own property. What if the dog is protecting you or your baby? For example a guard dog type? This has happened before where someone has broken in and the dog bit the offender who got away with a slap on the wrist whilst the dog protecting its family was pts.

Sorry, my post wasn't clear at all. When I say that he 'reacts' that's puppy jumping up and being friendly. I didn't word that well at all stupidly. My bad, as the yoof of today say (and somebody put in a work email to me yesterday!)

I spend ages training our puppy though, probably an hour a day, plus Saturday mornings we do our KC 'good citizen' award, which we will take to gold standard the do agility or some ohter training. I also walk him for two plus hours a day, have worked really hard at socialising him. Not expecting a medal, it's what I expected to do to produce a well behaved dog. So I would feel he would be missing out by being muzzled when I have tried hard to esure he is well behaved. Bit like a whole class punishment iyswim?

I just wish other owners were as commited, that's all and wonder if it should be made compulsary although how enforcable it is I just don't know.

Fair enough to have designated dog areas, the dogs need exercise and the owners get a huge amount of pleasure out of it. I don't want a totalitarian ban, just to feel safe from unwanted attention of any kind when out,

keyboard errors!

Keri - it is a defence to an assault if you were trying to protect yourself. So if dog was reacting to protect someone else, the owner should not be charged.

But we need to move away from this view that it is acceptable to have aggressive dogs as 'protection'. Unless they are very, very well trained - I would say to police dog standard - they aren't discriminating about when they are aggressive and toddler gets same treatment as a burglar.

As long as I can access open areas where my dog can run, sniff and play I would be happy to accept restrictions in other areas.

Why designated dog areas? Because I pay my taxes and my dog gives me an enormous amount of pleasure and is a true addition to my family. What on earth is the problem in clearly designated areas? Then dogs can play and those who want to avoid dogs can do so much more easily.

Here in Sweden dogs are supposed to be on a lead at all times when out and about. Although the recent attack on my little westie shows that some ignore it. Also every park I've been to here has had a completely safe and fenced in 'dog park' where they can be let of lead to have a good run around. The one near us has a proper dog playground with all sorts of doggy agility stuff in it for them to play with.

Well I pay my taxes as well and I don't want the money being spent on maintaing public land for other people's dogs to run around on. I would probably think differently if I didn't currently spend so much time in public places worrying about getting attacked by some fucking animal while the owner bleats "He's only playing", but I am fucking sick of dogs and their half-wit owners ruining people's enjoyment of public spaces so I don't feel much inclined to give anything over to them. If you want a dog park, maybe buy some land and set yourself up in business providing one; I don't see why the state should.

DDAs would also enable dogs to socialise with each other, and for owners to talk and share information. Which can do nothing but good I think.

You could present the same argument about children's playgrounds Wallison!

I have to say I agree with Wallison. My local common has become pretty much a no go area for me and my kids - too many morons with dangerous dogs.

My DCs' infant school in the 1990s was next to a park with a footpath across it leading from one of the exits off the school playground. Some bloody dog owners would always pick school out time to come and exercise their bouncy dogs, where they'd knock children over, terrify them and leave crap everywhere. So eventually the council designated a special area within the park. It was a very good area, fenced off the same size as the substantial child area with playground. And still some bloody dog owners refused to use it. There's no winning with some people [grr].

In my current village we have people driving to the edge of the village playing field, letting their pooch out whilst staying in the car themselves, watching it crap from afar, calling it back (I suppose we should at least be thankful the animals have recall), and driving away again. So we have begun a campaign of encouraging the dog-owning community to police itself. It seems to be working reasonably well although twats will always be twats.

But DDAs and muzzles, along with compulsory crap collecting would solve that problem.
The DDA could be fenced off, to avoid accidental mixing.
(Can't believe I'm the moderate on a dog thread )

Let's face it though, the same kind of people who keep dangerous dogs for "protection" are same kind of morons who carry weapons "for protection"- ie so far outside the norms of what we would view as our common belief system in the UK that it is impossible to reason with them- their world view is just so different.