A fourteen year old girl has been killed...

[JustGiveMeFiveMinutes]

...mauled to death by four dogs.

RIP

needastrongone, are you vegan?

You seem to have drifted from the point of this thread, needsastrongone.
Poo is annoying, upsetting and unhygenic. Cat, dog whatever, it's yukky.

Cats don't attack people and maim them. In the same way that so many other animals create mess and damage but aren't dangerous.

er no? I have a beef in the slow cooker soaked in cider and orange from 7am this morning Is this relevant?

so,

How much additional income tax are people prepared to pay in order to bring in all these magical solutions? 1%? 5%? 10%? because we don't have enough money in the system to enforce the laws as they currently stand, let alone to bring in all these enforcement officers to ensure that all dogs are licenced/microchipped/newtered etc etc.

The fact is that there is actuallly no way of enforcing any kind of law like that. So you make people have dog licences, how do you prove who has bought a dog? puppy farms are a reality and there's nothing that can be done about those for starters, so anyone can currently go and buy a puppy and collect it at the severn bridge where it will be brought from Wales (where puppy farming is a huge problem), take it home, keep it there, never take it for walks, so no chance of it being seen by the proposed dog wardens which people want patrolling our local parks...

Pitbuls are banned in the UK yet they exist. The DDA has been unenforceable because there is no way to actually prevent someone from owning a pitbul, all you can do is act when you become aware of one's existance, by which time it is usually too late.

I agree that out of control dogs are a nuisance. I agree that there should be harsh penalties for anyone whose dog attacks a person, and I even go so far as to disagree with this notion often perpetuated on here that a dog who bites should be rehabilitated and rehomed "responsibly". The only responsible thing to do with a dog who bites unprovoked (and yes, not all dog attacks are unprovoked) is for the dog to be put to sleep. But we simply don't have the money available to start bringing in these enforcement measures, and it is far too easy to evade them so the irresponsible dog owners will just continue to be irresponsible dog owners, but the responsible dog owners but who just don't have that much money at their disposal will be the ones having to give up much loved and and well cared for family pets, while the 'ard blokes with their status dogs will live on.

I was wondering whether you think it is ever ok to humanely kill animals

You haven't met my friends cat then Neb (joke!)

I think there's been a fair bit of drifting, not just by me tbh, but fair point which I take on board.

Just was making the point that just because I don't like cats, really don't like them, that's not relevant to the actual argument about dangerous dogs.

Owning pets - particularly cats or dogs - has been shown to have therapeutic value.

I would agree with an animal being put down if it was dangerous yes, or if it was in pain and suffering. But would I agree if the owner (not the dog) hadn't met the standard required in the test that you suggest (the general I don't disagree with, I think training should be compulsary so ensure minimum behaviour standards, although, as I said, how enforcable that is I am not sure), that that wouldn't sit easy with me tbh.

I dont think making it more expensive to own a dog is the solution as that would basically mean that most people on benefits or lower incomes would be priced out of owning one, which isnt fair. I dont think micro chipping from birth as a revenue stream is workable either, as all the idiots will do is claim their dog has ran away or been stolen, or been ran over etc. They will find a way around it.

I'm going to throw out a few ideas here. Some people will be up in arms about some of them I am sure, others hopefully could be considered.

1. Dog licences £50 per dog. All dogs to be microchipped

1. Certain breeds (ie rottie, GSD and bull mastiff's) will need further checks. You will be required to attend a approved training centre where you will be trained in looking after these dogs. You must pass the test. Otherwise the dog is taken from you.

1. At these training centres at the end of the course (which you will be paying for having personally chosen a breed on the 'list') an assessor will decide whether the dog and you have passed.

1. For certain breeds there will be a home check (again at your cost) to ensure you have the space to care for their large size. if you do not pass and insist on getting a dog your neighbours/concerned passer by's can report your dog to the police and it will be taken away.

1. For people on benefits (and this is the one I am going to be flamed for!). One dog only.....

I totally understand the joy that dogs give to say the elderly or alone. However you might need one dog - you dont need more than one.

And yes, I am judging people and their ability to pay for the pleasure of having a dog.

Of course there will be exceptions but we need to give people consequences and responsibility when they choose to have a big breed dog.

I am also speaking as the owner of a rottie.......

'just as others don't like dogs, really don't like them', not sure what happened to my other post.

With this sort of draconian laws passed as a knee jerk reaction to an event like this you only create a paradise for lawyers who will find ways to drive a coach and horses through it, as they have with the present legislation. It certainly couldn't be financed and run on the basis of dog licences. Dog owners are voters too and I can't see it being a popular measure - not sure any political party would be very happy to run with anything like this.

I've just had a look at some pictures of those dogs that attacked Jade. I really don't think that big white one is a Mastiff or a Staffie - it is absolutely huge and its ears and eyes are wrong to be a Mastiff.

I'm sympathetic to people who love their SBTs or similar. I just think it is impossible to be objective when thinking about your own pet. That's why I think regulation is the answer here - I liked FigSolution's ideas.

I'm cautious of all dogs that I don't know, but it has to be said that you don't hear of spaniels ripping people's throats out in the way that you do about SBTs etc. I'm sure some of that is down to who chooses which kind of dog, and how they subsequentely treat it, but I'm just not sure that I personally would be able to trust a SBT around children.

I'm one of the older posters here, and in my lifetime I've seen a lot of previously unimaginable laws come into practice, be resisted and are now part of people's every day understanding and are unquestioned.
Laws will tighten, it's just the time frame that's in question.

Bloody hell, sorry about errors, I should spell check and not multi task, can't even blame the phone

Peonies, the white one is an American bull dog.

The woman owned these dogs because SHE could. There are no laws to stop her, she is plain stupid to think that having all these dogs is a responsible thing to do.

So, moving forward people like her need to be forced by laws and in a monetary terms to consider whether she can really afford to have one. At present she could do what she likes. She could move back into her house with 4 dogs of exactly the same breed.

Thanks Nebulous - I think my ex neighbour used to have one. Absolutely terrifying beast that used to bark at me whenever it saw me and strain at its lead. I did report it, but nothing happened.

Neb - what true words you speak! And look at technology. I didnt grow up with a mobile phone (they werent around!) and sat nav. What a great invention. Unthinkable many years ago....

^ Ironically, I have trained the dog to 'go' in a field, way way off the path,

Do you own the field?

No, but our friends do, it is where DD keeps her pony. I have spoken to our friend about our dog going to the toilet there and he is absolutely fine. Their dogs are also trained to go in their fields rather than the footpaths in the small village where we live. It breaks down naturally rather than being bagged and on landfill, the latter being preferable if on footpaths or public places naturally. I walk my dog a lot on their land, with permission. I also have permission to walk on the field of the other local farmers. So, he is not bothering anyone by jumping up or pooing where he shouldn't be.

I got the meaning behind your question but, in this instance, leaving a mess on someone else's doorstep, so to speak, isn't the case.

Although, I don't know if all the foxes, badgers, deer, mice, birds, horses, cows and sheep get permission to poo in his field though! How rude of them!

Joke

As someone put it so well down thread - never mind banning breeds, we need to look on the other end of the lead! I haven't seen a photo of the dog owner or her house, but I can imagine exactly what she and it are like.

I didn't mean that last comment to sound crass in light of the death of Jade. If it did, then I apologise, I didn't mean it to.

"Curryeater - confused One post you say that you would never be cruel to an animal and I believe you. However, another post you suggest them being put down? Not sure!"

This is a very important point. putting an animal down is not being cruel. I can't stress this enough. Animals have no sense of time and no sense of self- they do not know they are being put down. So it is not even remotely cruel, so long as it is humanely done obviously.