Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Boy 10 mauled to death at holiday park

787 replies

Witchofzog · 13/04/2019 15:08

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
TreadingThePrimrosePath · 19/04/2019 07:18

Dog haters don’t fill shelters and rehousing facilities with discarded animals, it’s dog owners who cause that crisis.
How to solve it? We eat a range of animals, pigs are as intelligent as many dogs. Lambs are as cute as puppies.
Owning any pet is not a human right. Even if I’d like a leopard.

GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman · 19/04/2019 07:47

It's okay to hate dogs and it's okay to love dogs: it's not an issue of basic morality. The morality is around how we treat other people, and how we treat the dogs themselves. Some dog owners are bloody useless and ditch dogs into shelters. Some dogs end up in shelters due to unfortunate events beyond anyone's control (illness etc).

It is also okay to object to proposals to control dog ownership if those proposals are disproportionate or irrational. Many of the dog owners involved in this discussion have put forward or agreed with numerous proposals in the way of licencing, training and so forth.

This discussion is just going round in circles.

KissingInTheRain · 19/04/2019 09:01

There’s nothing immoral or inhumane about banning breeds or sizes of dogs.

There’s nothing disproportionate or irrational about doing that either. It’s been done already for certain breeds. And there’s no right to own a dog, let alone a specific kind of dog.

These discussions do go round in circles. That’s because there’s only so much to say about stopping these appalling dog attacks and so little that dog lovers will agree to.

I fear we can just expect more injury and misery caused by dogs and more selfishness from many of their owners.

GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman · 19/04/2019 09:08

I aksed earlier for someone to show where I have objected to the DDA. I'm not saying that banning certain breeds is immoral or disproportionate.

But to suggest banning dogs solely on the basis of their size is, frankly, ignorant.

KissingInTheRain · 19/04/2019 09:25

But to suggest banning dogs solely on the basis of their size is, frankly, ignorant.

It isn’t, but even if it was it wouldn’t do any harm.

mydogisthebest · 19/04/2019 09:41

Flazmeadow, so if you were in charge (and thank God you are not) all dogs over a certain height, weight, neck and jaw size would be banned!

So, as I asked before, what size? What height? What neck and jaw size? Are we talking Labrador height or taller?

As I said I have what most people would regard as fairly large dogs. They would likely fit the height criteria but they are very slim so possibly not the weight one. Also they have very slim necks.

Banning purely on height, weight etc would just be crazy and, thankfully, is never going to happen.

Amongstthetallgrass · 19/04/2019 09:44

More children die in car crashes. Should we ban driving?

KissingInTheRain · 19/04/2019 09:53

Comparisons with cars is so idiotic. You might as well compare dogs with the hazards from electricity in the home.

As for how big and powerful for a dog to be banned, that would be worked out by experts. Just like the DDA categories were, and should be for its necessary wide extension.

Hearhere · 19/04/2019 10:09

It does kind of feel like we're flogging a dead horse here
Or flogging a dead dog
Not that im an advocate for either killing or flogging, it's just a figure of speech

AvocadosBeforeMortgages · 19/04/2019 10:09

If you are genuinely interested in preventing the deaths and serious injuries of children, then the comparison to cars is highly relevant. Cars kill thousands each year; you can usually count the number killed by dogs on the fingers of one hand.

If this was truly about saving children, and not about furthering your own personal prejudices, you'd be able to see that focusing your energy on reducing road deaths would save far more children than any restrictions on dog ownership ever could.

Flaxmeadow · 19/04/2019 10:39

It's obvious that many dog owners simply do not want to ban any more dogs, whether that is by breed, by size or by physical characteristics. The pet industry, for obvious reasons, doesn't want it either

This is why around 10,000 people, mostly children and the elderly, will continue to be admitted on to hospital wards every year, this is just in England alone, and every year we will see fatalities. In one recent year, 6 people died from dog attacks, on average that was one fatality every 8 weeks.

There are many breeds and sizes of dog. If we banned more dogs, there would still be other types of dog to choose from but that isn't good enough the dog lover brigade and they are a 'brigade' or whole army even . The breed will become extinct they cry. But breeds were artificially created in the first place.

'Domesticated' dogs are mutants and because they have been inbred and genetically modified by man breeding them for 10000s of years, they have dangerous characteristics, large jaws, powerful neck muscles. Some breeds are hearing impaired or even deaf (dalmatians for exmaple). Some breeds are genetically prone to attack. It isn't hard to understand that many dogs will be insane from birth with a sickness that cannot be trained out or medicated or even diagnosed. If dogs had been left in their natural habitat. They would probably be rare and small and with small jaws. In some areas they woild have simply died out because scavengers do in certain conditions. But man took these animals out if their natural environment, to use them as work tools. Domesticated dogs are unnatural and this is partly why they are so dangerous.

mydogisthebest · 19/04/2019 10:43

Not sure the DDA was a roaring success so would those "experts" be any good at working out what weight/height of dog should be banned?

I agree with Avocado. If we truly wanted to save lives, whether childrens' or adults, we would also be looking to make cars safer somehow.

When the numbers of car related deaths and injuries is so much higher than dog related it's ridiculous to focus on dogs

KissingInTheRain · 19/04/2019 10:48

The DDA was a success. But it didn’t go far enough. Many of the appeals against confiscation or destruction orders are on the basis that the dog isn’t genetically one of the banned breeds. A system based on size, weight and so would avoid all that nonsense.

As for arguing for freedoms for dog owners because of cars...🤦‍♀️

Flaxmeadow · 19/04/2019 10:53

Yes the DDA, brought in after the horrific attack on a girl, Ruksana Khan? in a park.

It has worked but as PP have said. It didn't go far enough.

RainbowFox · 19/04/2019 10:58

*If you are genuinely interested in preventing the deaths and serious injuries of children, then the comparison to cars is highly relevant. Cars kill thousands each year; you can usually count the number killed by dogs on the fingers of one hand.

If this was truly about saving children, and not about furthering your own personal prejudices, you'd be able to see that focusing your energy on reducing road deaths would save far more children than any restrictions on dog ownership ever could.*

Totally agree with this. I'm not sure why it can't be used in comparison. Crude as it sounds, a death is a death and with both dogs and cars, more can be done to prevent these deaths. I think dog attacks are more emotive due to the horrific way it happens and the relationship many people have with dogs. But that doesn't mean it's more important to prevent than death by cars.

I've not seen one person on here say we don't need to do more to prevent these deaths by dog attacks. We all agree that but the anti-dog people only want to see bans of some sort and I suspect the root cause is due to their own issue with not wanting to be around dogs. Dog owners on here have come up with many, many other possible solutions to prevent irresponsible ownership but the anti-dog posters only want bans.

LittleMissHappy19 · 19/04/2019 10:59

The DDA did not reduce any injuries to humans caused by dogs.

Google breed specific legislation - a dogs dinner.

Read it.

@Flaxmeadow can you answer our questions..what size neck? How tall is too tall?

What happens if a dog is a cm under your height chart? That dog is deemed to be ok?

Flaxmeadow · 19/04/2019 11:05

I haven't seen any reasonable argument for not banning more dogs or dog types.

Dog owners argument often seem to revolve around 'but my dog wouldn't do that...my dog is trained...my dog ...my dog ...my dog..'
This is not helpful

Flaxmeadow · 19/04/2019 11:10

can you answer our questions..what size neck? How tall is too tall?

This would be for the experts to decide

What happens if a dog is a cm under your height chart? That dog is deemed to be ok?

If he dog is under one of the measurements it would be allowed. If it is over one if the measurements it would be neutered and so that size phased out

LittleMissHappy19 · 19/04/2019 11:20

@Flaxmeadow I haven't said at one point in this thread that my dogs would never hurt somebody.

Yes my dogs are trained, but I'm not under any illusion, that if for example my child started hitting one of them, my dog wouldn't defend it's self and bite.

That's why under no circumstances either of my dogs are left alone in a room, or outside with my dogs.

Flaxmeadow · 19/04/2019 11:27

The problem with banning breeds is that dogs are cross bred. Sometimes a dog owner does not know what breed the dog is, even expert do not always know for certain

Measurement of dog by weight, height, neck and jaw is much simpler. We all know how to use weighing scales or a tape measure. We could have diagrams on how to do this, these could be delivered to every household in a leaflet at a small cost and also made available online. If a dog owner was unsure about the procedure. The dog could be taken to a warden or vet to be measured
This will not happen though. The dog owner brigade is too strong. You would have 'dog rights' campaigns emerge. This has already happened, when vicious dogs have been 'condemned to death' (their words) and campaigns set up to 'save' them

AvocadosBeforeMortgages · 19/04/2019 11:37

DDA has led to some frankly bonkers decisions.

One that sticks out in my mind is Tyson, a police sniffer dog. He was adopted by the police from the RSPCA as a puppy, believed to be a staffy, found to have excellent searching capabilities and was shaping up to make an excellent sniffer dog; there are no reports of him exhibiting any aggression.

However, because he looked a bit like a pit bull (and the legislation is based purely on looks) he was deemed to be a "pit bull type" and put down at 18 months old, much to the upset of all those involved (including the police officers). What a complete waste of time and public money taken to train that dog, and of the dog's life itself.

As the current law is based on measurements and how a dog looks, not actual genetics, it is theoretically possible to have a dog known to be a lab x staffy with no history of aggression that happens to look a bit like a pit bull and is consequently seized by the police and put down.

The current legislation is a complete mess.

Flaxmeadow · 19/04/2019 11:53

...he was deemed to be a "pit bull type" and put down at 18 months old, much to the upset of all those involved...

Upset? Why do people become upset when a dog is humanely put down. It's a dog not a person. It has no self awareness. No sense of being. It's an animal.

Do people become upset when rats are exterminated or mosquito's. Do meat eating dog owners get upset about cows, lambs and pigs being slaughtered every minute of the day. Animals that do not have the luxury of a death by fatal injection. Dogs have it pretty good in comparison as far as I can tell.

These are animals we are talking about, not humans

BertrandRussell · 19/04/2019 11:55

Generally speaking with potentially dangerous things you have to prove yourself responsible and to have a need of said dangerous thing before you’re allowed to have it. Maybe the same should apply to dogs?

LittleMissHappy19 · 19/04/2019 11:56

It is just completely illogical.

From the research I have done no Saint Bernard's have killed children in the UK.
One of the biggest dog breeds in the world.

Yet a Jack Russell has killed in a baby.

But you are saying let's ban all the Saint Bernards and we can all still have Jack Russells?

It makes no sense.

And I'm a Jack Russell owner.

You must see how it won't work and it's completely unfair.

What it does show, is people's complete lack of knowledge about dogs. All pets really.

I agree about leaflets being posted though, I have receive so much junk mail. I think people should be posted leaflets, on dogs not being left with children etc..

Flaxmeadow · 19/04/2019 12:01

...to be clear. I mean 'upset' in general. Obviously having a pet out down would be upsetting and thats understandable. But getting upset in general about dogs being put down, in context with other animals?

Swipe left for the next trending thread