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

blog.dogsbite.org/2018/10/hunt-county-dog-mauling-death-texas.html
Kristie Kelley, 44, is one of five women in 2018 whose husband arrived home to find his spouse severely injured or dead due to a vicious dog mauling. All five women, ages 28 to 64, died.
Kelley was killed by her husband's solid white mastiff, a Dogo argentino, not a "short haired white Fila Brazilia." Kelley is the second spouse in 2018 killed by her husband's breeding Dogo.
In 2018, 86% of dog bite fatality victims, ages 28 to 64, were female. This is a sharp rise from the 13-year average of 54%. We looked more closely at Kelley's death to try to understand why.

'So far in 2018, nearly one-third (9 of 30) of all recorded dog bite fatalities have been violent attacks upon their owners or caretakers; the people who love, feed and care for these dogs. Six of these owner deaths involved pit bulls, two deaths involved mastiff-mixes and one death involved a dogo argentino. One-third of these deaths involved a "rescued or rehomed" dog. In the month of October, there have been 6 fatal dog attacks and 5 involved a dog killing a family member'

If they were we would be looking at drastically more than 10,000 injuries a year.

As I understand it, the figure of 10,000 is hospital admissions. That is someone admiited onto a hospital ward for further treatment

Injuries also include attendance at A&E, an appointment with a GP and injuries where the victim of the attack did not seek any medical attention at all. Those are not included in the 10,000 statistic.

@hearhere www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/5994583/Dogs-as-intelligent-as-two-year-old-children.html

Yes @HearHere.
dogsbite.org is an excellent website for information. Its sad that we should need it at all but hopefully we will have a UK branch or version soon

I really do think a sense of proportion is necessary with the level of danger dogs actually present.

Data from one year in the UK

• 29 people drowned in the bath
• 5 people died from accidental suffocation in bed
• 3 were killed by dogs
• 1800 were killed in transport accidents, the vast majority of which involved cars.

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/06/deaths-mortality-rates-cause-death-2011

Cars, baths and beds all kill more people than dogs - and I imagine that you allow you and your children to come into contact with those without a second thought.

When I worked with a behavioural specialist, I was not taught to reward dogs with food or toys. Our dogs were rewarded with love and told how good they were.

My dogs aren't possessive over they food, bones etc..because we were taught, that our dogs need to know their place in our household.

The pecking order. They are below us and our children.

@Flaxmeadow what exactly do you want?!

A 'sense of proportion'?

As I said earlier the USA is leading the way on information. This is from a hospital website in America

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta, Ga., there are approximately 800,000 dog bites each year that require medical attention. Even more amazing is the fact that 334,000 are severe enough to warrant treatment in a hospital.

Breaking these numbers into smaller increments allows one to really appreciate their magnitude. There are 2,400 dog attacks every day, 100 each hour or one every 36 seconds...More than 50 percent of all dog bite victims are children...

@AvocadosBeforeMortgages it seems utterly pointless. As dog owners we are willing to listen to the non dog owners point of views, but our views will not be taken on board at all 🤦‍♀️

what exactly do you want?!

An answer off the top of my head?

I suppose I want to help prevent dog attacks, especially with regards to children. Also spread information and be involved in debates. Find out better ways to navigate streets, parks, beaches etc when I walk around my neighbourhood with my family.

Yes I think we can gather from this thread, that everyone is in agreement that we don't want people injured by dogs.

But what do actually propose is done to prevent this?!

What divides the posters is support for effective controls.

Why shouldn’t a greater range of breeds be banned as pets? Why? There is no argument against it except some people’s preferences for one dog over another. If we banned say 30 breeds there would still be hundreds of others to choose from.

Why are so many dog owners unwilling to give up some freedom for the common good? Why?

We all want fewer dog bites.

If I were going to be queen for the day and had that as my mission, I would

• regulate the dog training and behaviour industry so that to call yourself a dog trainer you need APDT accreditation and to call yourself a behaviourist you need CCAB or APBC accreditation; all insist on positive reinforcement methods.

• regulate the rescue industry - at the moment anyone can call themselves a rescue and there are concerns that this leads to some being a front for puppy farming.

• better regulate breeding - at the moment puppy farmers are able to churn out litters of undersocialised puppies from mothers who have never seen the inside of a house, at great profit.

• have dog licencing, with the aim being to ensure dog owners are suitably educated, including
• three week theory course on dog training, behaviour and health, along with how to acquire a dog from a proper breeder or rescue (this would then give you a permit to buy / adopt a dog). For those who acquire dogs informally (eg from family and friends) this would be done as a catch up session
• once the dog is acquired, there would be a 6 week practical dog training course. Group for most dogs, but individual sessions for rescue dogs who can't cope with group sessions.
• clear signposting for people who want / need additional help afterwards or later on
• perhaps a follow up course when the dog is about 9-10 months old (the pain in the arse adolescent stage) which would provide a benefit such as reduced insurance premiums.

• compulsory insurance - partly so that health issues causing aggression can be swiftly investigated, and partly because most policies include third party liability insurance, and partly because it's frankly irresponsible nowadays not to have insurance.

• children to be educated in primary schools on how to behave around dogs (eg ask before stroking, be gentle, don't wake a dog up), and how to recognise the subtle signs that a dog is scared (as that's when a dog is most likely to bite). This could be modeled on the Be Dog Smart programme.

• vets to check microchip details are up to date annually / whenever they see the dog. It's not directly linked to bites, but while microchips are now compulsory the details are frequently out of date and ownership of strays cannot be established.

Why wouldn’t you ban the more powerful and dangerous dogs? It would far easier and cheaper.

As dog owners we are willing to listen to the non dog owners point of views, but our views will not be taken on board at all

I would say the opposite is true.
A post made suggesting more breeds (not all) should be banned was immediatly met with this, from numerous dog owners.

completely illogical..

Oh dear the nutter is back...

[a] complete looper...

fails to talk any sense...

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11082729/Mother-tells-of-moment-pet-dog-mauled-her-daughter-4-to-death.html

Someone posted this link upthread and I've thought about it a lot since. It's horrific and the family should never have been allowed to rehome this dog.

The inquest result (www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11082729/Mother-tells-of-moment-pet-dog-mauled-her-daughter-4-to-death.html) apportioned no blame but surely the rehoming centre and previous owner are significantly responsible here. Maybe there should be legal implications for dog homes and previous owners too. If the previous owner hadn't lied then the dog may have been given to a more suitable new home, not one with a child.
The mum has also never owned a dog before and I wonder what level of education and support she was provided by the dog home before they rehomed the dog.

I don't know how many deaths are caused by dogs with a history/rehomed but maybe that's somewhere we start with bringing in more responsibility. I think the mandatory microchipping brought in in 2016 might help long term, the dog in the case above would have shown there had been several owners if mandatory microchipping was in place.

Also I know it's deed not breed but maybe certain breeds need more restriction for ownership, which would be more manageable than trying to make it mandatory for every single dog owner and breed. The only similar example I can think of is to drive larger or different vehicle types needs extra tests and licensing.

@Flaxmeadow back to this old chestnut.

No YOU wanted all breeds banned.

That is why posters then commented how completely ludicrous you were.

You wanted to drop that, and we moved on..now you want to go back around in circles 🤦‍♀️

The dog haters what do you see wrong with what @AvocadosBeforeMortgages suggests?

To me that would be absolutely amazing, if those steps were put into place.

To answer kissing, I think people resist controls on dogs for a number of different reasons:
A) Thin end of the wedge - they worry that if more bull breeds are banned, then boxers and rotties will be next (and I have known rotties that are soft as lights)
B) They genuinely don't think that the problem is linked in any way to certain breeds, it's all to do with the owner not the breed
C) They think that though there is a risk, it's low and that complex regulation is an over-reaction

And, to be fair, I think a lot of people who own and love dogs find people who dislike dogs to be quite ignorant about dogs and therefore they mistrust the anti-dog people's conclusions. For example, I find the idea that every dog is 'inherently dangerous' to be ridiculous. My dog might be accidentally dangerous - she might trip me up by walking behind me - but inherently? No.

No YOU wanted all breeds banned.
That is why posters then commented how completely ludicrous you were.

That post, that was being replied to, is a list of certain dogs. It is NOT a list of ALL dogs. It is a suggesting the law be made wider to include other breeds, not all breeds.
Why would someone go to the trouble of making a list, by weight, height, jaw and neck size if they were proposing that ALL dogs should be banned by law?

I think dogs over a certain weight, height, jaw and neck size should be banned. As I have repeatedly said, this ban should be 'phased in'. I do not see what the problem is with making this statement or why it causes such strong reactions in dog owners

...excluding 'working dogs' (as was previously stated)

Thank you Grumpy, I’m grateful. But it won’t surprise you to know that I can’t agree with any of that.

A) ‘thin end of the wedge’ is all too often a refuge of those without any good argument. If the other dogs prove dangerous of course they should also be added to a ban. No-one’s doing this for fun: it’s to stop maimings and killings. Rottweilers should be banned in the first place.

B) This is just head in the sand stuff.

C) Many who tear their hair out at the lack of proper action reasonably think that dog lovers are very selfish and will never admit that the freedoms they want are abused by others and that sensible people accept limitations in the public interest.

This is painful. Yes you did suddenly change your opinion after you got slated for wanting to ban all the vile unhygienic creatures.

Do you really want to carry this on?

Can you instead of ignoring the reasonable dog owners, who are coming up with very helpful solutions on fixing this issue..maybe listen?

We are answering all your issues.

Can you tell me where you find fault with the proposals @AvocadosBeforeMortgages suggested?

Can you instead of ignoring the reasonable dog owners, who are coming up with very helpful solutions on fixing this issue..maybe listen?

We are answering all your issues.

You most certainly are not doing either thing.

The only reason you and most other dog owners are agreeing with minimal change is so that you can oppose genuinely effective change that would head off problems, not just clean up afterwards.

I’d remind you that dog owner posters on here have even opposed the Dangerous Dogs Act: by their argument even pit bulls should be allowed again.

Do you really want to carry this on?

No I do not, but if you insist, I can copy and paste the relevant post (without edit) and you can continue to misinterpret it. It's up to you but at no point in THAT post did I say that I wanted to see legislation introduced that would ban ALL dogs. For THAT post I was called a looper and was referred to as 'the nutter is back' etc by numerous dog owners

Moving on
1 My personal opinion is that it would be better if all dogs were banned
2 I would like to see legislation brought in to ban more dogs by weight, height, jaw and neck size

One is a personal opinion, the other is a suggestion

What I would prefer is for us to debate my suggestion. A suggestion other posters have also put forward