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

Why are so many dog owners unwilling to give up some freedom for the common good? Why?
because he's my boy and I love him and I cant be happy without him, look how cute he is, I cant imagine life without him, I have to have him

My personal opinion is that it would be better if all dogs were banned
for me that feels too extreme/unattainable, I would like to see dog free zones and legislation to reduce the numbers of dogs
I would like to see legislation brought in to ban more dogs by weight, height, jaw and neck size
I agree with this

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
any attempt to control dog ownership is experienced as a threat to their lifestyle and happiness....
'if they come for his rottweiler next they'll come for my Labrador, I love my Labrador and I'll do anything to keep him in my life, if people have to suffer at the teeth of attack dogs so be it, I need my boy in my life'

I would like to see legislation brought in to ban more dogs by weight, height, jaw and neck size

So you could basically see breeds of dogs become extinct because humans don’t look after them properly.

I agree that there should be compulsory insurance

any attempt to control dog ownership is experienced as a threat to their lifestyle and happiness

Hardly. Basically every dog owner has agreed that regulation on the owners is not just acceptable, but sensible. We just don't want to see breeds of dogs demonised for the failings of the people responsible for them.

Good dog owners would prefer to have licensing and training requirements (which are more onerous on them and therefore more of a 'threat' to their lifestyle) to weed out the bad owners, because they understand the importance of continued training through the life of a dog.

Doing that is already going to eliminate the 'need' to ban specific breeds because you sure as hell aren't going to get someone that wants a muscular status dog going to regular training sessions (so they would lose the dog) and if they do then the dog will be appropriately trained. It's a win win and one that most responsible dog owners wholeheartedly agree with.

@Flaxmeadow your post was deleted..in THAT post you did say you wanted all dogs banned, why would people comment about your statement, if you didn't say it?

And now do the dog haters out there see any problems with my previous post on steps like these put into place. Here is my original post..

Everybody is in agreement that things need to change. What happened was beyond tragic. It was the owners and mothers fault, why this poor little boy isn't here anymore.

People saying all dogs should be banned, are absolutely idiotic.. you honestly believe that would happen?!

The problem starts at how easy it is to be able to buy a dog. It should be against the law to buy/ sell dogs on the internet.

If you do wish to have a dog then it must come from a reputable breeder (kennel club)

It should be against the law for any bitch to have more than two litters of puppies ( let's face it, the main reason people breed their dogs is for the money!)

Your puppy should of had it's first vaccinations, and then when the dog registers with your vets, it should be mandatory that every owner is to complete a course from a dog trainer or dog behavioural specialist.

Once they are satisfied, that your dog is well trained and you are a component dog owner, then you can be signed off.

It should also be mandatory that a yearly check up is carried out by your vet. Your vet would be able to tell instantly, the control you have over your dog! How well looked after the dog is I.e (has the dog been back for flea/ tick/worming treatments, is update with vaccinations etc)

If any of these are missed, then you must be made to pay for the trainer to come back out. As obviously you are not a responsible owner!

If you do not comply, then you will be fined. The monies will go to dog charities, and the dog will be taken off you. You will then not be allowed to own a dog again.

I think small steps like these, will put a lot of people off owning a dog!!

Your scheme would be a worthwhile thing to do in addition to banning dangerous dogs. But it seems to be designed for the welfare of dogs not the safety of people. Fines going to dog charities? Really?

Do you think that the Dangerous Dogs Act should be scrapped? If not, what’s wrong with more extensive legislation stopping people keeping other dangerous dogs?

Please do not say that large powerful dogs are no more dangerous than other dogs. That is patently untrue.

Where would you suggest that fines go?

Dog charities are over run with dogs that have gone from being the cute little puppies, that gets loads of like on bloody social media..to a full grown dogs that don't look 'cute' anymore, and they can't be bothered with the upkeep.

Dog shelters will initially suffer if laws like mine suggested were brought in. It would rule out a lot of bad dog owners, who would then get rid of their dog and hand it over to a dog shelter. They would struggle significantly more than they do already!

And no don't put words into my mouth, I have previously stated that I do think some dog breeds should be banned.

But any dog can be a risk, there have been a few deaths of babies from small dogs 😔

So if dogs are banned by weight, height, jaw and neck size will that be ALL dogs over a certain weight, height etc?

Just because a dog is a certain size it doesn't make it more liable to bite. I get the argument that a smaller dog could be overpowered but lots of smaller breeds are the ones most likely to bite - jrt's and dachshunds to name just 2.

I like just about all breeds of dog but I would never ever want a small breed. I like big breeds, especially Great Danes and Wolfhounds. The dogs I have are not a big as that but are fairly large.

For large dogs though they have very slim necks (those medical cones don't stay on) so how would they fare in this supposed scheme?

I don't know if Flax ever suggested a general ban, but Kissing certainly did:
'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' (16 Apr, 09.25)

Now Flax has said much the same.

And that is why dog owners suspect that breed specific bans might be the thin end of the wedge: we are aware that there are people who want all dogs banned.

I’d remind you that dog owner posters on here have even opposed the Dangerous Dogs Act:
Do please show me where I have done that.

your post was deleted..in THAT post you did say you wanted all dogs banned, why would people comment about your statement, if you didn't say it?

Your screenshot is not the post they were they were replying to.
The post they replied to with 'looper' and 'the nutter is back' is on page 14

Extinction??
Dogs are not an endangered species ffs

I get the argument that a smaller dog could be overpowered but lots of smaller breeds are the ones most likely to bite - jrt's and dachshunds to name just 2.
Yes, but to be fair, mydog, dachshunds have never killed anyone. The post waaaaay upthread that claimed they had was a big breed ID war in the US (last year I think). I saw photos of the dogs in question after they had been euthanised and if they were dachsies, I'm a baboon.

It's the dogs that maul and kill which are the big concern, and these are predominantly bigger breeds. But generalising about bigger breeds isn't rational either: plenty of large breeds rarely bite and have no record of killing people either.

The danger a dog poses is the result of several factors: it's genetics (which is a combo of the breed and the breeder); its upbringing; how it is being kept and handled at the time; its state of health.

Do we know what breed? Some media said a 'bulldog'. Not an English bulldog surely because they aren't very big compared with a ten year old.

Really? Are you saying that it couldn't be an English bulldog as they are too small? The English bulldog that was bred to fight a full grown bull to the death? I'm sure most 10 year olds wouldn't cause a huge problem.

It's opinions like this that put people at risk.

@Flaxmeadow we are talking about you wanting a ban on all dogs 🤦‍♀️

Why would @Wolfiefan respond to YOU with this comment, if you didn't say it..

Flax you’re sounding bonkers now.
This is a tragic event. But you can’t ban all dogs because of the bad decisions made by one parent.

Anyway I think the point has now been proven..you can't possibly respond to this, when the facts are right there for everybody to see. But I presume you will fire back with some pedantic response.

I'm leaving it there with you now @Flaxmeadow

Let's get back to moving forward and what can be done in the future.

@LittleMissHappy19

For the 2nd time.
The post they replied to with 'looper' and 'the nutter is back' is on page 14.
They are not replying to a post about me wanting to ban all dogs. A deleted post or any other post. They are replying to the post I made that specifically points out that I do NOT want to ban all dogs.

Page 14 - Tuesday
Me - 11.06am post that says ban more dogs but not all
PP- 'oh dear the nutter is back' - 11.23am
PP- 'looper' 11.28am

Those posts are still there and they have nothing to do with your screenshot of posts that were made 20 hours earlier, the day before (Monday)

I was called a 'looper' and refered to as a 'the nutter', not that I care, but I will try again.
Do you LittleMissHappy19, as a dog owner object to legislation being brought in that would ban dogs over a certain weight, height, jaw and neck size.
If so what would be your objections and why?

So if dogs are banned by weight, height, jaw and neck size will that be ALL dogs over a certain weight, height etc?
@mydogisbest

Yes

The selective repeating of my comment by Grumpy was in response to the constant objection to a ban based on size and being told that small dogs are just as dangerous as big dogs. Hence my natural and sensible response that they must all be dangerous in that case.

But since it’s obviously wrong and foolish to suggest that small dogs present the risks of bigger, powerful dogs, the dog lovers can rest easy that an absolute ban would be most unlikely.

To be honest, I think people are starting to conclude that all too many dog lovers don’t actually care about the victims of dog attacks.

I think that is a disgusting comment to make!

That really upsets me that you conclude that because I'm a dog lover, I don't care at all that a little boy has just lost his life!

How sick of you to say such a vile comment!

@Flaxmeadow How big of a neck? How heavy?
How tall?

Is a Golden Retriever too tall? Is a Basset Hounds neck too big? Is a Cocker Spaniel too heavy?

dachshunds have never killed anyone...

Actually they have and this example below isnt the only dachshund attack resulting in a fatality
1979
The boy died after the 6-year-old dog chewed off his legs while the mother slept in a nearby room. The dog was described as well-behaved by neighbors and friends.

Though at least in an attack by dachshund, someone aware of it could easily fit their hands around it's neck and squeeze the life out of it. This cannot be said for many other breeds of dog. This is partly why neck size I believe is so important

The selective repeating of my comment by Grumpy was in response to the constant objection to a ban based on size and being told that small dogs are just as dangerous as big dogs. Hence my natural and sensible response that they must all be dangerous in that case.
If you make comments, you must expect them to be taken seriously in what is (I trust) a serious discussion, since irony doesn't always come across well in internet discussions. Of course people who enjoy and love dogs are going to object to statements like that.

Anyone who knows anything about dogs understands that some small dogs are a lot more unpleasant and dangerous than most large dogs. Banning dog breeds solely on the basis of size is irrational.

To be honest, I think people are starting to conclude that all too many dog lovers don’t actually care about the victims of dog attacks.
I'm not sure how many dog-lovers you know, but perhaps you should talk to them more.

As for dachshunds: about 7,000 are registered each year in the UK alone. This means that at any given moment there are about 70,000 of them waddling around the country. Yes, it's terrible that that child died in that way, but if human safety is our actual motivation, rather than a dislike of dogs, we'd be better off banning the use of ladders by untrained individuals.

I conclude from this thread that a number of posters on it hate dogs, for whatever reason, and that the positives that dogs have brought to human society for tens of millennia, and that they bring to people now, are neither recognised nor understood by them. To them, all dogs are dirty, detestable and dangerous.

In reality? Some dogs are dangerous, a few lethally so. We have to strike a balance between benefit and risk, and that involves remembering that there are 8 million dogs in the UK, most of whom never bite anybody.

But it’s OK to hate dogs. Why shouldn’t people hate dogs? All the dogs we’re talking about are pets, mere pets, not emergency rescue dogs, guide dogs etc.

Most who want restrictions don’t hate dogs in any event. They largely indifferent IMO.

But it’s not OK to protest at proposals to stop terrible injuries being caused by dogs, just to suit dog lovers’ selfish wishes.

Your numbers are worthless. You need to work out how many injuries there are in total and how many and of what severity are caused by particular breeds.