Forum menu
They don't bite until one day they do, and for people who don't own a dog, its hard to tell the difference between a friendly and non-friendly one.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-56737576
its hard to tell the difference between a friendly and non-friendly one.
Is it?
I wouldn't want that thing within 20m of my son or my dog!!
That dog could be really chilled and friendly. Just because the tabloids decided that an entire breed was deadly it doesn’t make it so. Staffies for example are pretty much daft, fun loving, over excitable buffoons in my experience.
To be fair most dogs will give off plenty of signals before they resort to biting. Just like all other animals you get the odd dickhead. I’m not condoning what happened in the OP and I’ve always kept my dogs on leads and ensured they are consistently trained and socialised. Sadly, just like with driving, cycling etc you’re going to get the entitled shit gibbons who think social niceties and not breaking rule one don’t apply to them. Learn to live with it or stop leaving the house.
Staffies for example are pretty much daft, fun loving, over excitable buffoons in my experience.
Of all the rescue breeds I came across Staffies were by far my favourite to work with. They love humans & crave affection. They are also super easy to read.
To be fair most dogs will give off plenty of signals before they resort to biting.
Not sure about this - the signs can be quite subtle & easily missed...
Just because the tabloids decided that an entire breed was deadly it doesn’t make it so.
Breed specific traits are a fact no matter how much people try to deny it and that ain't a staffie and I would be in no rush to give it a cuddle.
No one said that was a Staffie.. 🤦♂️
We have two Boxer X dogs - when they bark and play rough&tumble with each other, they look like this:
[img] 
[/img](not my actual dogs)
Neither of them has ever even come close to biting a person, nor would they ever, because when they were young they were taught not to. Boxers are lovable daft idiots, something which is well-known.
Judging the potential aggression of a dog on the way it looks is just wrong, and ends up with Breed Specific Legislation - which should be thrown out and should never have existed to start with. But that's another discussion.
One thing you can be sure of about the dog in the picture anagallis_arvensis posted is that at one time in its life as least, it's been badly treated.
I mean, their ears don't get like that without going under the knife.
It might have been capable of being a lovely dog but I wouldn't want my dog getting too close to it.
It's a terrible shame for the dog.
Boxers are lovable daft idiots, something which is well-known.
Judging the potential aggression of a dog on the way it looks is just wrong, and ends up with Breed Specific Legislation
🤔🤔🤔
Neither of them has ever even come close to biting a person, nor would they ever, because when they were young they were taught not to.
And that right there is exactly the problem, that mindset.
You can not claim ever, that a dog of any breed would never bite another human or animal (think about the poor sheep that die from those loveable pooches) even if it was "taught" not too.
Breed specific traits are a fact
Evidence?
Not sure about this – the signs can be quite subtle & easily missed…
That’s why I said most and I never said the signs were easy to see
No one said that was a Staffie..
This too! I used staffie as an example as they are more common over here in the UK and have a pretty similar reputation to the American pit bull.
Another animal - no, I couldn't guarantee it, which is why they're on leads whenever anywhere near sheep, cattle, etc.
But a person? No - in their 11 and 6 years they've never even remotely come anywhere near that. In all truth they're both better with people than they are other dogs!
Tbh, this thread might as well be closed. They always go the same way, and no one ever changes their views because of it. Sensible dog owners get annoyed at being tarred with the same brush as the idiots, but don't see why they should have to modify what they do because of it. Non-dog people want everything done the way they say and won't compromise. It always ends in an impasse with everyone disliking the other side.
OP - I'm sorry you and your OH had to encounter an idiot and their dogs. If you're ever in the Surrey/Hants Borders area and would like to meet a couple of dogs that have helped several people with their fear of dogs, you're quite welcome.
Breed specific traits are a fact
Evidence?
Ask yourself what the point of a 'breed' is? They have relatively predictable traits. If you can't see this have you ever seen a dog. Greyhounds like chasing, sheep dogs like doging and retrievers like erm.. you work it out
I used staffie as an example as they are more common over here in the UK and have a pretty similar reputation to the American pit bull
Except ones an illegal breed and the other one isnt
Sensible dog owners get annoyed at being tarred with the same brush as the idiots, but don’t see why they should have to modify what they do because of it. Non-dog people want everything done the way they say and won’t compromise.
And in a nutshell there is the entitled dog owner attitude.
All I ( and the other non dog owners) want is for you to keep within the law by keeping your dog under control at all times and that means it does not come up to me at all unless I invite it to do so.
It does NOT have to be on a lead IF its properly trained. I have only ever known one dog so well trained. all others needed to be on a lead at all times because otherwise not under control.
to be under control it MUST be withing eyesight at all times and recall immediately and reliably. If your dog does not do this then it MUST be on a lead at all times
thats the law
I’ve owned a retriever that retrieved nothing and a Newfoundland that was scared of water. Dependent entirely on the lineage of the breed and how far removed they are from working stock.
As per previous post the staffie was used as an example and pit bulls were banned as a knee jerk reaction. No point continuing this as we’ll just keep arguing.
Breed specific traits are a fact no matter how much people try to deny it
racist
All I ( and the other non dog owners) want is for you to keep within the law by keeping your dog under control at all times and that means it does not come up to me at all unless I invite it to do so.
Are you the one controlling the dog? If not then that argument makes no sense. That's up there with a dog that causes fear being automatically dangerous (regardless of context). You're doing a good job of conforming to the stereotype though, I'll give you that.
thats the law
Really.
that means it does not come up to me at all unless I invite it to do so.
Isn’t that rule for Vampires?
And in a nutshell there is the entitled dog owner attitude.
All I ( and the other non dog owners) want is for you to keep within the law by keeping your dog under control at all times and that means it does not come up to me at all unless I invite it to do so.
It does NOT have to be on a lead IF its properly trained. I have only ever known one dog so well trained. all others needed to be on a lead at all times because otherwise not under control.to be under control it MUST be withing eyesight at all times and recall immediately and reliably. If your dog does not do this then it MUST be on a lead at all times
thats the law
You seem to be missing a word there, dangerously.
"Under section 3(1) of the 1991 Act (as amended by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, (the ‘2014 Act’)), if any dog is dangerously out of control in any place, including all private property, the owner, or person for the time being in charge of the dog, is guilty of a summary offence. That offence becomes an aggravated offence, and triable either way, if the dog injures any person or an assistance dog while out of control.
A dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person or assistance dog, whether or not it actually does so, (section 10(3) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991). This is not an exhaustive definition and the ordinary meaning of the words should still be applied. If a dog is factually deemed to be acting in a way that could be termed ‘dangerously out of control’, for example attacking livestock, a prosecution may still be brought.
Section 10(3) of the Act provides an exemption in any case in which the dog is being used for a lawful purpose by a constable or a person in the service of the Crown. In R v PY [2019] EWCA Crim 17 the defendant was a police constable with a police dog. He faced one count of being in charge of a dog which was dangerously out of control. The relevant question was whether the dog was being ‘used for a lawful purpose by a constable’. If it was, the incident fell out of the scope of section 3 by virtue of section 10(3). The Court held that the key to the scope of the exemption lay in the concept of ‘being used’. Whether a dog was being used for a policing activity by a constable was a question of fact. On the assumed facts upon which the issue was argued in R v PY, the exemption in section 10(3) was not established, (the dogs were kept at home and were being exercised as the defendant was required to do so). R v PY provides guidance as to the meaning of ‘lawful purpose’.
Under section 3(1A) of the 1991 Act a person is not guilty of an offence where the dog is dangerously out of control with respect to a trespasser who is in, or entering, their home, whether the owner is present or not. This exemption does not apply to dog attacks on trespassers in gardens, driveways or outbuildings.
The offence under section 3(1) is an offence of strict liability. The prosecution is, however, required to prove that an act or omission of the defendant, with or without fault, to more than a minimal degree, caused or permitted the dog to be dangerously out of control. R v Robinson-Pierre [2014] 1 Cr App R 22 provides: Parliament did not intend to render the dog owner absolutely liable in all circumstances for the dog being dangerously out of control, or to create an offence without regard to the ability of the owner or someone to whom he had entrusted responsibility, to take and keep control of the animal; there must be some causal connection between having control of the dog and the prohibited state of affair that has arisen."
Now that's the law....
Isn’t that rule for Vampires?
That only applies to inviting them into your house and it is also a vampire law so that explains why the government has never had to put it into UK law.
Nope flicker - dangerously is different/ Plenty of case law. On previous threads I have read up this stuff. Kennel club website is good
That is the legal position - you dog must be under control at all times. If it is not you are liable for any damage or other issues it causes. civil and case law not statute
Ie your dog knocks me off my bike - you are liable as you did not have it under control.
3 categories - dangerously out of control which can get the dog put down and is a criminal offenses.
Under control which is as I said above You are liable in civil law
In Scotland there is a further category - under close control which applies around livestock which is defined as on a lead or at heel. Breech this one and the farmer has the right to shoot the dog
As I said - check the kennel club stuff on this - its very good.
good point squirrelking
you dog must be under control at all times
What about if my dog is in the garden whilst I'm not at home, do I have to use a Jedi mind trick on it or something?
Doesn't read like you describe it here:
https://www.bluecross.org.uk/pet-advice/laws-all-dog-owners-need-know
Nope flicker – dangerously is different/ Plenty of case law. On previous threads I have read up this stuff. Kennel club website is good
That is the legal position – you dog must be under control at all times. If it is not you are liable for any damage or other issues it causes. civil and case law not statute
Ie your dog knocks me off my bike – you are liable as you did not have it under control.
3 categories – dangerously out of control which can get the dog put down and is a criminal offenses.
Under control which is as I said above You are liable in civil law
In Scotland there is a further category – under close control which applies around livestock which is defined as on a lead or at heel. Breech this one and the farmer has the right to shoot the dog
As I said – check the kennel club stuff on this – its very good.
That would fall under dangerously out of control.
I can't find anything on the kennel club website, I'm guessing I need to be a member.
So far I've found nothing about control at all times not even on the government website, so far everything references dangerously out of control only, which to me seems sensible, it's impossible to keep any animal 100% under control 100% of the time, we haven't managed it with humans yet so I'm not sure why dogs should be a special case.
https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public
What about if my dog is in the garden whilst I’m not at home, do I have to use a Jedi mind trick on it or something?
These were left in the garden, obviously the jedi trick didn't work https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-56624119
Not read the entire thread but have seen a couple of posts along the lines of "just grab the dogs collar and everything will be ok".
As a non-doggist I would be extremely uncomfortable trying to do that. Basically you would be putting your hands in easy biting range - I might try with a very small dog but no chance on anything that would not fit in the average sized handbag.
That only applies to inviting them into your house and it is also a vampire law so that explains why the government has never had to put it into UK law.
Thanks for clarifying Kerley. Got muddled up there for a second. What if the vampire is on a lead?
As a non-doggist I would be extremely uncomfortable trying to do that.
I wrote that, the context is really needed to see the full picture, it was simply some advice, as you say it needs some confidence and understanding, the person I was addressing was a dog owner. As always, if you are genuinely scared, boot it up the ass.
Except ones an illegal breed and the other one isnt
Why?
Why?
Under the dangerous dogs act.
flicker - cannot see it on the kennel club site now but I assure you that is the legal position. Obviously it only applies in a public place but thats the facts of the matter - you have an obligation to keep your dog under control at all times. If you cannot do this without having it on a lead then you must keep it on a lead
Its civil law and case law not statute
I can't be bothered looking it all up again now
I can’t be bothered looking it all up again now
Well you've convinced me!!
flicker – cannot see it on the kennel club site now but I assure you that is the legal position. Obviously it only applies in a public place but thats the facts of the matter – you have an obligation to keep your dog under control at all times. If you cannot do this without having it on a lead then you must keep it on a lead
Its civil law and case law not statute
I can’t be bothered looking it all up again now
We'll have to agree to disagree. I can find no reference other than to dogs being dangerously out of control and nothing that backs up you post.
Blue cross seem to cover everything, it's mostly common sense though, don't let your dog be a nuisance.
My wife was knocked over by a dog out of control (Scotland). The dog broke her leg badly resulting in a plate and screws to hold it all together and six months off work. No apology from the dog owner who vanished afterwards, and unfortunately case law in Scotland does not support any likelihood of getting compensation for loss of earnings etc... she can no longer go running or skiing and is generally limited by what someone elses dog did.
Under the dangerous dogs act.
Ah right so breed specific traits?
My dog can be a complete dick when out and about but unpredictably so. He is as likely to play with another dog as he is to pin it to the ground until it submits. He is also as likely to bark at a human as much as he is to ignore them. Based on this unpredictability we take him out with a muzzle and a lead, he hates the muzzle (in the process of getting a stupidly expensive bespoke one made to try and add comfort) so I take it off if we are in a place free of other dogs. It goes straight back on if there is another dog nearby off lead, they just can't be trusted. Just this evening I was out and had him muzzled and on the long lunge lead so I was completely in control. Little dog off lead starts messing with him, owner calls dog, dog doesn't respond so I am left trying to hold my lad back while the little thing messes around. I walk away, the little dog follows, and eventually the owner catches up and huffs and puffs about putting it on a lead?
Same place 2 days ago, I see a dog without owner bounding up a footpath next to the field we are in. Dog enters field and it is a Doberman the size of a small pony, fortunately it is female so less chance of a reaction from my fella but it won't leave us alone and no owner in sight. If it had been my wife walking Toby she would have been in tears, she is terrified of Dobermans after an incident years ago. Eventually an owner appears, no comment, no acknowledgment, walks into the adjacent field and eventually the Doberman follows.
Finally, while I am venting, I made a mistake one day as we had been playing fetch (with the dog not my wife) and he was carrying his ball in his mouth so I hadn't attempted to muzzle him. Came round a corner to be met with two dogs off lead. One of the dogs just ignore Toby which was fine, the other walked straight up to him and tried to take his ball out of his mouth. Needless to say Toby didn't like that and snapped, catching the Greyhound on the nose and cutting him. Apparently that was my fault because I had him on the lead. The other owner stated that if he was off the lead he wouldn't have reacted. WTF are you supposed to do? Idiots everywhere. To the OP, my wife sends sympathy vibes to your OH.
Wasn’t as well thought out as that from what I can tell. More akin to profiling. Those dogs look a bit shady and some of them are wrong uns so....
I’m simplifying but the act needs revisions. Responsible owners who know what the **** they are doing regardless of the breed. That’s what is needed. All dogs have potential to be dangerous, just like any other large domesticated mammals. I find it sad that innocent animals suffer due to humans being dicks.
All dogs have potential to be dangerous, just like any other large domesticated mammals.
True but some are much better at it than others.
My lurcher seems to have a general rule of thumb that if her head would fit in the other dogs mouth it isn't getting near her!!
on the long lunge lead so I was completely in control
Er, ok...
Was it on this when it but the other dog?
Er, ok…
Was it on this when it but the other dog?
No, short lead right next to my leg
True but some are much better at it than others
Some have potential to be better at it than others due to historic uses. Guard dogs and herd guardians being two prime examples. Managed correctly the vast majority are fine just like any other breed. It’s that people can’t be arsed to research and just buy a dog on looks.
Er, ok…
Was it on this when it but the other dog?
But even if it was on the lunge lead he would have been recalled back to me and not dancing around 10m away. did you decide to just choose the one point where I admitted an error in judgement?
(All I ( and the other non child) owners) want is for you to keep within the law by keeping your child under control at all times and that means it does not come up to me at all unless I invite it to do so.
It does NOT have to be on a lead IF its properly trained. I have only ever known one child so well trained. all others needed to be on a lead at all times because otherwise not under control.
to be under control the child MUST be withing eyesight at all times and recall immediately and reliably. If your child does not do this then it MUST be on a lead at all times
thats the law
Yeah but kids don’t tend to jump up or bite. Well mine do but they’re the exception that proves the rule. How many times in your life have you been bothered by a child in the same way that a dog might do? If you say one or more I’m going to accuse you of fibbing
Indisputable proof of the menace.