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

It is just completely illogical

It is not illogical when you look at the coroner's reports of the injuries and the same dog type are reported time and time again

Weight - hard to physically get the dog off the victim
Height - same
Jaw size - hard to release the gripping jaws

Neck size - same and hard to strangle the dog due to the thickness of muscle , if not impossible

This is about being able to physically overpower a dog during any attack

Funnily enough I was just researching deaths by Saint Bernard attacks and yet to find any, even in the US.

Bernese Mountain Dog another one. Both very beautiful dogs.

The dog brigade is strong too strong, they position themselves as saviours of endangered animals but god knows the domestic dog is no more endangered than is the domestic pig

the former raised to god-like status by its human overlords who get such pleasure from coddling their fur babies
the latter condemned to a life of misery pain and horror by its human overlords who get such pleasure from consuming it's flesh

(Please excuse my misplaced apostrophes)

But a Jack Russell still killed a baby?! It doesn't matter if the owner could get the dog away or not. The poor little baby died.

How can you not see that this is a valid point, making your proposal to go off height, weight, etc..completely ludicrous?!

You are willing to have all Saint Bernards banned, even though they haven't killed a child in the Uk?

Yet a Jack Russell has and they are still deemed to be ok to own in your head?

'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'

These are great points, we have a wizzened and tortured the genome of the domestic dog to a cruel and unusual extent

Jack Russell serious injuries and deaths are rare. Bites might be more common but I think we should concentrate on the statistics around the more serious injuries and the fatalities
Someone, even a child could fairly easily overpower a JR. Even someone who is scared of dogs would probably have a go at killing one during an attack. This is not the same for many other breeds, especially those that are large or have powerful jaws and thick neck muscles

The breed names that we give to dogs are just arbitrary categories, we may feel as if there are firm boundaries but there are not, they are fluid shifting categories
there is one species/genotype the domestic dog, (canis lupus familiaris or canis familiaris) and a very wide variety of phenotypes some we have chosen to formalize by naming, others not

you speak about wanting to save the st bernard as if it were akin to saving the polar bear
It's a domestic dog, the domestic dog is not endangered by any stretch of the imagination

the same dog type are reported time and time again
Yep, the same TYPES: principally bull breeds, terriers and mastiffs. Size, as I have tried to explain before, is not the only factor. There are large breeds of dog which pose minimal risk. There are small breeds which pose more.

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?
Haven't some dog owners suggested this sort of thing? On this thread? I'm sure I mentioned the gun licensing model earlier....

Flax, can I politely suggest that you read about dog evolution and cognition before you preach about it?
'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 example).
Dogs were bred from wolves. They are, on the whole, smaller and weaker than wolves, and a great deal more human-social (they can understand human cues like pointing). Dalmatians are not all deaf. The deafness is to do with pigmentation issues.
Some breeds are genetically prone to attack
Some breeds are more prone to dog- and human-aggression. Even so, not every dog of those breeds will have those traits.
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
What ARE you on about? I suppose you have some science to back this up?
If dogs had been left in their natural habitat. They would probably be rare and small and with small jaws.
No. See above. There are quite a few left i the natural habitat. They are called wolves.
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
It was a bit of both, according to the current state of the knowledge. Tamer wolves hung around humans. Humans found them useful. Humans bred the tamer ones together. Humans found them ever more useful.
Domesticated dogs are unnatural and this is partly why they are so dangerous.
Likewise cows, goats, sheep, cats, pigs, yes? It's actually the complete opposite: dogs are so safe because they are unnatural. 30,000 years (possibly more) of co-existence has seen to that. Thousands (literally) of years of humans regarding dogs as companions. People actually loving their dogs is nothing new.

How can you know so little and be so sure that you are right?

Using the metrics of weight, neck size, jaw size and height is a perfectly rational and logical way to determine which dogs pose the most threat to humans

my understanding is that we do not have a consensus on whether or not domestic dogs were descended from wolves, it is merely a theory

These are great points says Hearhere of the rant by flax. Another one who hasn't got a bloody clue.

If you are going to discuss a topic, it really, really, really helps to know a bit about what you're talking about.

Wolves

Dogs are not directly descended from wolves

How can you know so little and be so sure that you are right

Yet it was you who incorrectly informed us that 'dachshunds have never killed anyone'.
When they have, as in he case of the boy who died by have his legs chewed off by one in 1979

I made one error. You have made rather a lot, based on a profound lack of knowledge.

All the evidence is that dogs descend from wolves, not from some mythical small-jawed scavenger.

Care to educate me about dogs being born 'insane'? I'm really intrigued by that one. I'm also waiting to be educated about how being 'unnatural' makes domesticated animals more dangerous.

Jack Russell serious injuries and deaths are rare. Bites might be more common but I think we should concentrate on the statistics around the more serious injuries and the fatalities
Someone, even a child could fairly easily overpower a JR. Even someone who is scared of dogs would probably have a go at killing one during an attack.

But it was too late for the poor baby that died because of the little Jack Russell?

It didn't matter if the irresponsible owner could get the dog off or not. The dog had already done the damage.

It is extremely rare in general that children die from dogs.
There are approximately 4.3 million dogs in UK households. I can find one child death that happened in 2018 due to a dog.

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?

I agree. And that’s a ban. Virtually all bans come with exceptions - firearms is the most obvious.

Other than researchers, breeders (who would sell abroad, presumably), the security industry and the police and armed forces, who needs a large dog? I cannot think of a single reason for Joe and Jo Public to keep a dog capable of killing an adult.

If docile large dogs get excluded because of this, so what? I would not want proper measures undermined by well-funded dog lover interests litigating the definitions of breeds.

Sorry my error there is estimated to be 9 million dogs in UK households.

So that makes the statistics even more rare that you will be killed by a dog in the uk.

It's actually 0.00001% chance that you will be killed by a dog.

Well, there is no need for Jo and Joe Public to own a firearm capable of killing an adult, yet plenty of them do. Legally. Are you seriously suggesting that we regulate dogs more tightly than we regulate guns? Because you can own an air pistol without a licence. It would be batshit to ban someone from owning a Chinese crested without a licence when it's still possible to buy airguns, fireworks and drain cleaner without one.

As for the docile large dogs...I don't think it's possible to reason with someone who wants to ban something just because it's the wrong size, even though it poses a negligible risk. A lightweight rifle can weigh less than a shotgun but it's a lot more dangerous and so will be regulated differently.

Some more statistics from the USA

Science Journal quote
The likelihood of a child getting bitten in their lifetime is around 50 percent with 80 percent of those bites involving the head and neck. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year and 885,000 require medical attention.

Well, there is no need for Jo and Joe Public to own a firearm capable of killing an adult, yet plenty of them do.

Rubbish.

Because you can own an air pistol without a licence. It would be batshit to ban someone from owning a Chinese crested without a licence when it's still possible to buy airguns, fireworks and drain cleaner without one.

Air weapons are strongly limited by power - a lot like banning large dogs. They’re still hazardous though. So maybe we should restrict them further. There’s also an offence for taking any weapon (loaded or not) or imitation weapon to a public place. Depending on the weapon, there can be a mandatory prison sentence. Maybe introduce that for all dogs in public?

I’ve long been in favour of a ban on public sales of fireworks (as are most dog owners).

Drain cleaner? Nah, not worth bothering with.

It’s not possible to have a sensible discussion with someone willing to frustrate any simple ideas for cheap and effective control of dangerous dogs with this sort of desperate argument, for merely selfish reasons.

Care to explain what's 'rubbish' about that statement?

Are you seriously suggesting that lots of people own guns, rifles and automatic weapons?

Yep. There are somewhere just under two million licensed weapons in the UK.

@Flaxmeadow do you live in the UK?

We are talking about an incident that happened in the UK.

We are discussing changing the laws in the UK.

USA statistics have absolutely nothing to do with the UK.

Our home. Helping to resolve issues in the UK.

But if you want to bring in other countries.
In the USA there is approximately 89.7 million dogs owned (chipped and registered) an accurate amount will be much higher, with people not chipping and registering their dogs. There was 36 deaths due to dogs in the whole of the USA in 2018.

That means a chance of death by a dog in USA in 0.0004%