Boy 10 mauled to death at holiday park

[Witchofzog]

I can't link on this phone but it is on most news sites. The owner was found off site after a police hunt so possibly fled when she knew her dog had killed a child. It's just awful - a young boy probably just going to the loo in the middle of the night on a campsite having his life ended because of a dangerous dog and an owner who can't control and/ or keep it securely away

Bertrand I’ve already suggested similar. But people just want to rant about “thousands” of injuries. Few actual facts.
And then be rude when you point out their lack of reasoning or evidence.

I agree with stricter controls but not based on size. We have the statistics to show which dogs attack more. I had no idea that many huskeys are aggressive for example (not all but statistically more that than a golden retriever) so size doesn’t always equal aggression.

However I did argue up thread that smaller dogs are less of a threat mainly because as adults we would be more likely to be able to overpower a small poodle for example or a small cavalier spaniel than a medium to large dog.

Do you mean Siberian or Malamute dogs? It’s really not the breed. Again it’s who owns them. I have a friend who has bred a few litters (over the years) of the former. Her dogs are lovely. But there are those who get them and never exercise or train them. Those are frustrated and a real potential risk.

But there are “thousands” of dog attacks every year.......

But banning dogs of certain breeds or sizes won’t fix that. It’s the way they are bred and trained and exercised and treated daily.

...Few actual facts...

These are government statistics. Deeply disturbing government statistics. Are you suggesting they are false or innacurate in some way?

...And then be rude when you point out their lack of reasoning or evidence...

No one has been 'rude' to you and the 'evidence' is plain for all to see.

There are facts. Nearly 10,000 hospital treated dog bites.

The argument for having a big dog seems to boil down to 'because I love her so much she makes me happy'

What if i developed a strong bond with a leopard, will it be ok for have her as a pet take her out for a walk, if not why not, i love her she makes me happy i can't imagine life without her, I promise I do everything I can to make sure she doesn't attack anyone I don't mind if I have to pay licence, I just really need her or I can't be happy.

Should I be allowed to do things that put other people at risk just because I need this thing to make me happy.

Licensing schemes - at considerable annual cost to owners to ensure they’re making a serious commitment - and the other measures suggested would be a decent start. If they yield very good results perhaps they’d be sufficient.

But if attacks are not very significantly reduced I really cannot see why prohibitive action against potentially dangerous dogs, i.e. bans, should be off the table.

There are numerous bans on animal keeping already. Nobody has a right to keep an animal that could do terrible damage to people. It’s a matter of society’s tolerance of dogs and dog ownership. If that tolerance runs out, it runs out.

But banning dogs of certain breeds or sizes won’t fix that. It’s the way they are bred and trained and exercised and treated daily.

Certain breed are more likely to result in serious injury or death. USA statistics , from memory, show that around 80% of deaths are by pit bull types (including Staffordshire bull terriers)

It is not the way they are bred or cared for. Dogs are predators. They are scavengers and they will gorge themselves on food until they vomit. They can kill for food, even when they are well fed. They can kill if they, often wrongly, sense that there is a threat to their own food supply.
Have you seen the indoor cctv footage of the dog killing a poodle? The dog waits until the owners are out of the room. It savages the poodle and kills it. The poodle had it's back to the dog and was in a submissive position. A dog will kill a sleeping child. It will go into a cot and attack, totally unprovoked. A dog will eat it's owner when, the owner is deceased. Even when the owner is only a few hours deceased.
Some PP claim it's 100% the owners fault that the dog has not been trained properly, but how does this explain dogs that kill who have no owner. As in the case of the woman who was recently savaged in the street in the USA by a pack of dogs. This was caught on camera from a car. Other attacks have been caught on camera/cctv and in many cases the attacks are completely unprovoked.
You cannot train a dog out if it's genetic make up and worryingly dog trainers don't even have a consensus on this, and are in conflict, about the ways a dog should be trained

I get the impression that the bigger the dog the more status and kudos you have as a dog owner, furthermore the more fierce and more powerful the dog the more status and kudos you feel because you are in control of this animal.

taking in rescue dogs and feral dogs is also seen as a way of proving your devotion to dogs

The thing that really terrifies me is the thought that we might end up with packs of feral dogs, if that happens more people will want to buy guns to protect themselves

Staffies aren’t pitbulls.
US and U.K. dog owners aren’t the same. They use dog parks etc.
We don’t have “feral” dogs in the U.K.

My dog gives me no “kudos”. Especially not when my cats beat her up.
I shall enjoy my walk and leave you all to froth.
Perfectly happy to pay for licensing. I think it’s a good idea. Not because dogs are inherently dangerous. But because people are stupid and irresponsible.

Staffies aren’t pitbulls.

I said pit bull types.

US and U.K. dog owners aren’t the same. They use dog parks etc.

The USA and the UK are very similar statistically

We don’t have “feral” dogs in the U.K.

I can only assume you live in a rural area

My dog gives me no “kudos”. Especially not when my cats beat her up.

This isn't about your dog.

I shall enjoy my walk and leave you all to froth.

And you accuse others of being rude

Perfectly happy to pay for licensing. I think it’s a good idea. Not because dogs are inherently dangerous. But because people are stupid and irresponsible.

Dogs are 'inherently dangerous' and dogs whose owners are not 'stupid and irresponsible'attack everyday

Big dogs being likened to leopards? Seriously? Wolfie is right. Reasoned discussion really isn't happening.

Flax, you said,
'For goodness sake. No one has suggested 'banning all dogs' and then you say we cant have a reasonable discussion.'
Actually, upthread:
Since the dog lovers are so keen to tell us that all sorts of breeds can do damage I’d suggest we introduce a general ban on keeping dogs

That said, I tend to agree with you about pit bull types (and the mastiff types in general - though some lines have in the last few decades been bred for really soft temperaments). Any dog can bite, but some breeds tend to bite more, and harder, than others. Some breeds are not a good fit with inept or first-time owners.

There would be no need to make licensing charges punitive: gun control works pretty well in the UK on a cost-recovery basis, and that includes a visit to the licence-holders house by the licensing officer.

Nobody has a right to keep an animal that could do terrible damage to people. It’s a matter of society’s tolerance of dogs and dog ownership. If that tolerance runs out, it runs out
@Kissing I'd like to think you're right but I'm not optimistic, does anyone know, are there any countries where tolerance to dogs has run out?

Actually, upthread..

One polite, and reasonable considering the topic, post out of a 19 page thread does not equate to

They want to froth about banning all the dogs..

To be clear my leopard example is intended as a thought experiment to illustrate the point picked up on by @kissing, ie that we do have a legislation to restrict what kinds of animals can be kept as pets

There would be no need to make licensing charges punitive: gun control works pretty well in the UK on a cost-recovery basis, and that includes a visit to the licence-holders house by the licensing officer.

But there’s a general ban on gun ownership. I’m not sure you’re advocating that for dogs.

The point of a licence would be to enable all the other controls that were suggested. The system would need paying for and wouldn’t come cheap. Plus the dissuasive effect on casual owners of a high annual charge would help enormously.

If the argument is that poorer people should be able to keep dogs we’re back to bans, because they’re non-discriminatory on the basis of income.

And I think the comparison with leopards or any other dangerous creatures is entirely apt. Some people in the states keep wolf-crossed dogs FFS.

I think the reason Wolfie so often accuses us of wanting to ban all dogs is because this is what she is afraid of and she has said this herself, she is concerned that things will get so bad that all dogs will be banned.
I do understand this fear, people are emotionally attached to their dogs and this makes them less than rational when it comes to the real risks posed by certain breeds of dogs

I think that people on low incomes would feel unfairly discriminated against if the cost of licensing and insuring dogs were prohibitively high
we have a notion that a dog is man's best friend, that everyone has a right to this basic fundamental need of an animal companion should they so desire

As things stand if you have very little in life, little money, no status an easy cheap way to make yourself feel big and powerful is to get a big attack dog

Well, maybe the cost of the licence could be means tested. It would remain linked to a stringent “test” though. There needs to be a cost because this whole process will be expensive.

Big dogs being likened to leopards? Seriously

Is a rottweiler really that different in size, strength and bite to a lepord?

The problem with expensive licencing is it makes dog ownership only for the wealthy. When dogs help people's mental and physical health.

I think all breeds should be looked at based on, number of attacks, size, strength, jaw and trainability. We could then have four tiers, tier one, completely banned. This would be pit bulls, bull mastiffs, akitas etc. Teir two dogs only allowed for working purpose by licences owners, that would be German shepards, rottweilers, doberman etc. Teir three would be larger and or more difficult breeds, like staffs or Great Danes or jack russles, that can be kept as a pet but you need a licence. But nice dogs that have low rates of attacks, are easy to train and good natured, like poodles, shitsuz, golden retrievers can be kept by anyone as a pet.

In conjunction there should be a 0 tolerance on dog attacks. Any aggression and the dog is put down. If it's found you kept a dog that has bitten you would face a hefty fine and criminal record.

I think the leopard is probably more fearsome than a Rottweiler, leopards are more agile, they can climb trees, I'm not sure how the bite strength compares to that of a dog though?

Perhaps a mountain lion would be a better comparison to a large attack dog?

@thelovecats you make excellent proposals!
I think we need better statistics on dog attacks, we often hear claims that, for example, labradors are the most likely dogs to bite but in order for this to be put into context we need to know what proportion of dogs are labradors.

Ultimately though I feel that the mood of the nation is along the lines of 'everyone should have a right to have a dog', I don't think restrictions and a licensing scheme would have enough public support.