I think this week's tragedy really shows up the major problem with the Dangerous Dogs Act. This dog had been reported to and seized by the police, who could not even enforce a muzzle because the dog was not one of the banned breeds.
The law needs to change to ensure that all dangerous dogs can be dealt with, not just the ones that look a bit scary.
fin25
The law needs to change to ensure that all dangerous dogs can be dealt with, not just the ones that look a bit scary.
But Fin, there's no such thing as a "Dangerous Breed" just bad people. Any breed can be a lethal menace or a big cutie pie. Most pugs and spaniels are vicious little bastards, but most mastiffs and rottweilers are perfect dogs to have around small children due to their maternal instincts.
Um, that's kinda what I said dude.
I really need to work on my sarcasm. 😉
[quote=jimjam ]Any dog can be a lethal menace or a big cutie pie. Most pugs and spaniels are vicious little bastards, but most mastiffs and rottweilers are perfect dogs to have around small children due to their maternal instincts.
I'm not quite sure that's true - a spaniel might be vicious, but would it be capable of inflicting lethal damage in the same way as a Staffie cross?
I really, [b]really [/b]need to work on my sarcasm. Or just stop trying to be sarcastic in a medium that doesn't convey it well, as I will no doubt shortly be told.
I agree Aracer.
Try putting /s after the main text.
Until someone comes up with a sarcastic font, it's the best we've got.
I have done on occasion but it seems somehow pointless when you do that.
We have a Poe's law problem here
Quite. Just allow me to reiterate that it's ****ing awful that a grown man (and not a small one by the looks of it) was torn to bloody pieces and died in the most horrific fashion imaginable by someone else's pet.
I think this week's tragedy really shows up the major problem with the Dangerous Dogs Act. This dog had been reported to and seized by the police, who could not even enforce a muzzle because the dog was not one of the banned breeds.
The law needs to change to ensure that all dangerous dogs can be dealt with, not just the ones that look a bit scary.
This area of the law has desperately need changing, the breed discrimination in particular is stupid.
Dogs that have done nothing wrong and independently expertly assessed to be of good character are still ordered to be destroyed simply because of their breed.
Yet dogs where there is clear evidence that they are of dangerous character are left with the same owners and no controlling action taken because of their breed.
Furthermore there is too much blaming/destruction of the dogs, rather than taking action against irresponsible owners and giving the dogs a chance to be rehabilitated with more sensible owners.
think this week's tragedy really shows up the major problem with the Dangerous Dogs Act. This dog had been reported to and seized by the police, who could not even enforce a muzzle because the dog was not one of the banned breeds.
Oh right I had obviously miss interpreted what I heard.
The law needs to change to ensure that all dangerous dogs can be dealt with, not just the ones that look a bit scary.
Indeed.
This area of the law has desperately need changing, the breed discrimination in particular is stupid.
Not really, it is a way of essentially forcing a breed to die out and removing a future risk.
Dogs that have done nothing wrong and independently expertly assessed to be of good character are still ordered to be destroyed simply because of their breed.
Dog owners bang on to the cows come home about breed characteristics, some breeds are essentially not suitable for our society the way to get the breed to die out is to remove the breeding population. Might be harsh on an individual dog but it's the bigger picture that matters
Yet dogs where there is clear evidence that they are of dangerous character are left with the same owners and no controlling action taken because of their breed.
I agree these dogs should be either destroyed or draconian measures placed on the owner where a breach means jail time or substantial fine
Furthermore there is too much blaming/destruction of the dogs, rather than taking action against irresponsible owners and giving the dogs a chance to be rehabilitated with more sensible owners.
Sorry, if a dog bites a person it needs to be removed from society. The dilution of this social taboo is part of the problem. The owner should also be prosecuted for not having the dog under control
Too much priority is given to dogs in our public spaces, go to a park and the dog free area is a small fenced off play ground with dogs able to use the rest of the space. Why is it not the other way around?
+1Too much priority is given to dogs in our public spaces
and too much leeway is given to dog owners who can't or won't control their dog.
First world problems, when people start regarding their pets as having equal rights to other people and in tandem the government are wary of upsetting those voters who are dog lovers.
I think all dogs should wear collars filled with explosive and fitted with sensors that can detect aggressive behaviour. Any misbehaviour and boom! - decapitated rover.
Jack Vance postulated something similar (for humans) in his 1973 novel The Anome 😀
[quote=Cletus ]I think all dogs [b]owners[/b] should wear collars filled with explosive and fitted with sensors that can detect aggressive behaviour. Any misbehaviour and boom! - decapitated [s]rover.[/s] owner
Jack Vance postulated something similar (for humans) in his 1973 novel The Anome
Fixed
Aracer - that works for me. Maybe a sensor to detect unbagged poops could be added.
Breed specific legislation is bollox. Ask anyone who works with dogs, whatever the capacity.
I've seen 1st hand evidence of this in a rescue centre.
I've seen bear eating rotties roll on there back for a tummy rub, I've seen pit bulls go giddy after a tennis ball & wriggle like a mad thing when their ears are scratched, I've seen nippy & aggressive toy dogs go for handlers & psychotic pure breeds lunge at anything that comes with 50 feet.
(None of this is made up - it's just an average day in an inner city rescue centre.)
It isn't the dog that's the problem, it's the environment it's kept in.
There is no doubt that there is unnecessary conflict between pet owners & those who chose not to, but the way forward isn't this poorly thought out piece of legislation!
Have a read & find out why:
[url= https://www.battersea.org.uk/new-battersea-research-provides-damning-verdict-dangerous-dogs-act-25-years ]BATTERSEA[/url]
[url= https://view.pagetiger.com/BSLAdogsdinnerreport/issue1 ]RSPCA[/url]
[url= http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/our-resources/kennel-club-campaigns/dangerous-dogs/ ]KENNEL CLUB[/url]
Let sleeping dogs lie 😆
Loopy ****wit owners get out there campaigning for your pets legal status to be equal with humans, higher is what you really want! They got #cuteface #doeeyes #simpleneeds #easiertodealwiththanrealkids, it's only fair. They never bit anyone before! All the responsible dog owners yet so many people have heard the phrase "he/she has never bit anyone before" makes you think eh.
Tragic, absolutely tragic. Makes me so ****in angry that this can happen in 2016 in UK.
I listened to a radio report about the incident whilst out in the car and a woman being interviewed said she heard screams that sounded 'like an animal being tortured' (I guess she didn't realise at the time that's what a three year old human sounds like when being torn to bits by a dog).
Again, very different circumstances, but another human killed by a dog in UK.
interesting to see the graph in the article below showing the increase in hospital admissions in UK due to dog bites, over recent years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-37129134
