A fourteen year old girl has been killed...

[JustGiveMeFiveMinutes]

...mauled to death by four dogs.

RIP

Children do not shit everywhere and run around snarling at and biting people. Well, not most of them.

I realise that I am anti-dog but I don't care; I fucking hate the things. We have a local nature reserve here that is entirely covered in dogshit - you have to wash your shoes every time you go in there. Not only that, but when you are walking around you never know when some fucking snarling great bruiser of a dog while stand and face-off at you - I've had a couple of near misses with my ds in such situations, and it has got to the point where we hardly ever go there now - it's pretty much become a no-go area just because of dogs. There are other public spaces locally that are similar. And I realise that the logical answer to that is to provide designated dog areas but I just feel so cross about public land being wasted in this way that I don't much want to give dog-owners anything.

Wallison, I'm not sure I want any of my taxes spent on you, in view of your prejudiced and unreasonable stance on dogs. Taxes fund leisure facilities of all kinds and dog owners are a large and overwhelmingly responsile sector of society. Yes it is shocking when a dog urts a human, but I think we humans would be shamed and shocked if we knew the full extent of the suffering we cause them.

My future dil heard nothing else about this yesterday as she works near to the area. Local people are saying she was attacked for pies she had just gone to buy, and was house sitting for a friend.

The poor child didn't stand a chance. There are many similar houses in the vicinity with these dogs. They aren't safe and even if trained properly can turn.

Wallison Totally agree with your post.

higgle - I am not sure Wallison will 'fucking' care

higgle

When people are missing out on a leisure activity, scared for their dcs and themselves, because of an animal lower down the food chain than us, plus some irresponsible owners who put their animal before human welfare, there is something wrong.

duchesse - I agree with your post entirely.

A labrador might knock you over for a meat pie but would be unlikely to rip your throat out. It is down to the training/lifestyle of the dog and owner though, not just the breed. But some breeds definitely have a more killer instinct than others and the one that have the lock bite are terrifying. I think dog breeding is well out of hand and really needs a crack down. Still loads of ads for puppies locally, charging £400+ a time- no wonder people do it. Still loads of bitches suffering from having litter after litter.

However, I've never seen a remotely dangerous dog in the local park, or anywhere locally, there are a number of idiots who don't pick up dog poo in public areas though. The field is for playing sport on, but seems to be mistaken for a giant dog toilet at times.

I do agree dog ownership needs to be toughened up, hopefully the obligatory microchipping system will help but it needs enforcing too. I also think though that dogs are a part of life, they aren't going to go away and if you have an irrational fear of them you need to get treatment. Fair enough to be afraid of a dog that is snapping/snarling at you, and one slobbering all over you and jumping up is unpleasant, but not of all dogs, just being well behaved and normal. DH's cousin has a dog phobia and the ILs have to make all sorts of allowances for her. She is the one with the problem. Also a couple of kids who DD1 plays with won't come in the house if we are looking after IL's or DP's labs! Kids should be brought up knowing how to behave around animals and have a healthy respect for dogs but being completely afraid of a well-behaved dog is ridiculous.

'but I think we humans would be shamed and shocked if we knew the full extent of the suffering we cause them.'

We don't, you see. It's usually dog owners that cause their animals distress. It's not dog dislikers that fill the shelters with bewildered and abandoned animals, or who neglect their needs.

'Prejudiced' against dogs? Oh my, that is wonderful.

Look, you can no more be prejudiced against dogs than you can be prejudiced against anchovy paste, or shoelaces or any other number of things that are Not Human.

Wallison is so spot-on on this thread.

This sort of thing makes me foam:

Higgle:
"Yes it is shocking when a dog urts a human, but I think we humans would be shamed and shocked if we knew the full extent of the suffering we cause them."

WTAF? Are you for real? Are you actually comparing the welfare of humans to the welfare of dogs? There is no way you can put dogs on one side of a scale that has children on the other and expect me to see the balance tip even slightly, even the tiniest tremble. Setting that supposed "balance" up just makes me lose all respect for anyone remotely pro-dog. I think your brains must all have softened in dog-shit-borne diseases.

I mean, this is awful wet drivelling bollocks at the best of times, but now, while countless other pages of this site are covered in mealy-mouthed justifications for cuts that are making people homeless and causing families to go without food - ffs, let's eat the fucking dogs.

curryeater - sorry, did I read your post correctly? I am sorry if I haven't, honestly I am. Are you bringing the welfare cuts into the argument about how to reduce the number of attacks on children/people by dogs?

I do wonder how any further restrictions (which I think there should be) would be policed? Any ideas?

Actually that reminds me, I can't help wondering if all the drivelling dog-saps are vegan, or even vegetarian.

I mean, I am happy to eat birds and cows and fishes and feed them to my children and we all go out wearing hardy and comfortable foot-coverings made of the skins of dead mammals. But animals are not people, I would not arrange for people to be killed because I am hungry, do you?

there are some posters on here who would make excellent MPs, most of them aren't interested in tackling the actual root cause of a problem either.

Banning certain breeds is an insult to our intelligence, as even a total idiot can see that it wont make a blind bit of difference. The dickheads will still want a 'status' dog, it just means they'll turn their eye to another breed.

Tougher punishments for reckless owners is the only way to stop this from happening.

curryeater - what realistic suggestions to you make regarding the control of dangerous dogs?

I have suggested training being made to be compulsary. We are already seeing the introduction of micro chipping all dogs. Tougher punishments as above.

What do you reckon?

I'd like to say that I am "the type of person" to own two of these dogs and I am sick of having the "lets ban the dangerous dogs" rubbish every time. What has happened is horrific and no child or parent should have to go through this. A larger dog has the capability of causing more damage than a smaller dog but any dog can be a dangerous dog. All dogs need to receive proper care, proper training and proper supervision. I have met plenty of small dogs that are overly aggressive, lack training and social skills and have no discipline what so ever. They are far more dangerous than a Staffy that has been trained by responsible owners. I completely agree that we should have licences, compulsory training. But I also think that we should punish owners for their dogs actions. Yes it is manslaughter, the owners actions caused a death without that intention!
Banning the entire bread or any dog over 5lbs doesn't fix the problem!
I have known of people that had dogs taken away from them and were banned from keeping them for 5 years, a couple of months later he had more!!! No one ever did anything more about it.
If a parent raises a teen that joins a gang, mugs and shoplifts we don't ban all teens, we give their parents a nice house, lots of benefits and pay their way in life
As for the dog poo then again it's down to responsible owners. I think most people would be as upset and annoyed about stepping in a Labradors poo as they would a bull mastif?

I don't think dogs should be kept as pets in towns and cities except as exceptions. I think the "part of the family" nonsense is what is causing this pathetic muddled thinking whereby the wellbeing of people in busy, overcrowded, under pressure, expensive areas, is being mistakenly and wrong-headedly "balanced" against the (completely non-existent) rights of dogs. I think if you want to keep a dog, and you live anywhere near anyone else at all, or want to take it into any village, town, or city, you should have to make a case for it and there should be very high bar for acceptable behaviour. Below this level, the dog gets put down.
If you have a working dog - like a blind dog - or if there is a strong social reason why you need the company, then dogs can be tolerated. But not otherwise. People will look back on how we live now and marvel that we were so stupid and filthy, like when children boggle when they find out that medieval cities used to have chamber pots emptied into the streets.

We are really struggling to manage the pressure of human populations in so many urban and suburban places. There are not enough dwellings - so many dwellings are piled up on top of and against each other so that living in them you can always hear other people and feel unacceptably crammed against strangers all the time - traffic and parking is a huge problem in so many cities - parks and open spaces so often look tired, the grass and plants are worn out from so many people walking on them, there is litter - we live like this because this is where we can make a living. Why add dogs into all this?

If you can keep a dog and it is honestly no inconvenience to anyone else, well you can have it - but you will not be in a city or a town or even a suburban area. And before you say "Oh but my dog is no inconvenience to anyone else", yes it is. they always are.

Dog licences.

Whatnameforme:
"I also think that we should punish owners for their dogs actions." yes, I agree, because the dogs are not humans and cannot take human responsibility in our human society for what would be crimes if done by a person. but also the dog no longer has the privilege of being tolerated in our society, not as punishment, but because people come first and the dog has proven itself dangerous to people.

Dogs can't take moral responsibility for their actions and therefore we do not have moral resonsibility towards them equivalent to that we have for other humans.

Seriously? No ones should be allowed to keep a dog because some people are homeless? Curryeater your mad!

We have no moral obligation to dogs, as they have none to us? So it doesn't matter how we treat any animal as it wouldn't care how it treated us? Ok

I didn't say "no moral obligation to dogs" I said "not the same as to humans". I think we should not abuse animals.

How would you enforce your proposal and who would put the dogs down? Assuming there is legislation that will allow city dwellers be discriminated against.

Agree re dog licences, which could incorporate the need to training within a particular time frame. Revoke this if not adhered to. Problem is what to do with dog when this happens and rescue centres being already full. It's such a difficult issue.

Also agree re strong punishments for owners with dangerous dogs.

Curry - your solution would be very expensive and time consuming, would cost tax payers money - YOUR money, your dog-hating-money - and would only satisfy a minority.

it would benefit more people to just impose tougher punishments on the crap owners. People who dislike dogs just carry on not disliking them, people who like dogs carry on liking them, and the fuckers who want to treat them like shite may well think twice if they knew they'd get a hefty fine and a custodial sentence if they step out of line.

Its fairly simple really, no need for hysterical banning of the ownership of dogs altogether

It really does matter how we treat animals, of course it does. but we don't have to treat them like people. They don't have to live with us and shit all over our parks and cities and jump up at us with their filthy paws AND KILL PEOPLE.

If I was on the way to a job interview and a toddler smeared banana all over me I might be a bit annoyed but I would think "well, he doesn't understand about the interview, and he is only a little child who deserves kindness and respect to help him learn to be a fully fledged polite adult human."
When some stupid dog does something like me I think "animals like that shouldn't be allowed in cities."
there seem to be some people who think you should treat the dog like the toddler. YOU CAN'T THERE IS NO POINT THEY ARE NOT PEOPLE

*carry on disliking them rather

The level of ignorance in here is shocking. Good to see plenty of balanced views too, though.

Yes all dogs can be dangerous, but children can also grow up to be murderers and rapists if they're raised in a shitty environment.

Dog licencing and checks should be compulsory and enforced. At the moment it's only responsible owners who chip their dogs. The scum who want trophy dogs don't.
We have a GSD, who needs lots of exercise and stimulation. So we give it to her. We spent months researching the work involved before we got her.
Plenty of parents do none of that when deciding to have a child they then neglect.

It's too easy to ban the dogs out of hand. Being a dog hater isn't a valid reason either. Dog shit is left by the owners, the dogs can't pick it up themselves and can't use a human toilet. Bad off lead behaviour is also the fault of the owners.
Our dog can be excitable, hence she is always on a lead. We never leave children alone with her, due to her excitement.
Although the most she does is herd the kids in the garden.