And fortunately there are very few around.

A lot of people are using dogs instead of knives.
I tried it and ended up with hair all over my toast.

Enforce current laws I would suggest.

As a confirmed dog, and dog-owner hater I reckon the owners of these sort of dogs should be treated by the courts in the same way as if they’d taken a knife the kiddies face….

I would add that it should be the owners responsibilty to demonstrate that their dog is not a dangerous breed (or crossbreed of one) to be registered.

The quotes above were mentioned on the first page and make total sense, especially if combined and funded through a license fee.
The technology for chipping must be more affordable now than when licenses were last required in ’87.
Responsible dog owners would not object to paying the fee if it could be demonstrated that removing dangerous breeds would make their dog-walks safer. Most dangerous dogs are vicious towards other dogs aswell as (or even more than) people, and it is responsible dog owners that would benefit most.

It doesn’t always work like that though, my last conversation with the authorities left me in no doubt that the decision would be what the officer believed to be the case rather than what documentation was shown to demonstrate they my Staffy was indeed a Staffy and that I ran the risk of her being denied entry into the country for being a dangerous dog.

You worked that out on your own, did you? 😉
I don’t think anyone would argue that a dangerous dog has no place in the home or on the street, the problem is when people try to provide a definition of what is dangerous.
I would argue that some opinions are actually more dangerous than any dog could be. 😛

Actually, I stand by my view that it’s an accident. And I’ll explain why I think that.

As Elaine Anne so rightly says, a dog is a dog. They think like dogs, people say “Oh old Bella, she’s been with us for 12 years now, she’s just like one of the family”. No, Bella is a dog.

Part of one’s job as a dog owner is to recognise that. One has to think pre-emptively on behalf of the dog and ensure appropriate behavioiur.

An accident is where you have made a mistake. You get in your car, and try to go round a corner at 60mph. When you are on your roof in the field, it is called an accident, what it is is an error in judgment.

This chap (and I am choosing to believe he did not set his dog onto the little girl) made an error in judgment. He believed that his dog (for whom he is responsible) would not bite. He made a mistake. I believe that is an accident.

That’s my point of view. Yours may well be different. That’s fine. We’re all headed in the same direction.

As an aside, I do wonder why people take dogs to places where there are children playing. I suppose the point of a ‘trophy’ dog is to show it off, and thus one would have to go to a well populated place.

FWIW, my dog is chipped and I scoop her poop.

Out of interest TJ, what’s your view on this…..?
Actually I do agree on the accident thing, like 90% of car accident could have been avoided, 90% of cycling accidents are down to rider error, etc…

Yes, sorry if its not peer reviewed evidence. On an open internet forum opinion and personal experience can be valid. IME I have only been bitten by dogs whilst walking my own. If a dog attacks mine, I will hit it or kick it until it f***s off. This is when I have been bitten.
I have faced down the same dog whilst waking without my dog and it has growled but turned and left. My experience has been that a dog that is already attacking, including other dogs, is a lot more difficult to control/scare off than before it starts attacking. I believe it to be an adrenaline/rage thing but have no scientific proof. Just 30 yrs of observation and experience owning dogs.

Even though you desparately try to demonstrate this, I would still disagree. I feel a lot less likely to have my face ripped off by this internet forum than a dangerous dog.

As regards the Staffy situation, sorry, maybe I did phrase it wrong.
It should be the owners responsibility to provide evidence/documentation in order to be considered for a chip and license.
If the authorities, with their experience and training still don’t believe the dog to be safe, then so be it. At the end of the day, its only a dog and people’s safety is more important.

My Staffy was chipped and still the decision was down to the border staff dog expert. 😥

he did not bite her the dog did and when it did it it did it on purpose and repeatedly. An accident would be a dog nipping someone excitedly , snapping at food, bumping someone over but not savaging you so you need plastic surgery and you can carry your ear home in a pocket.
Its like me turning a corner and bumping in to someone and banging heads or me turning a corner and then beating the same person senseless with 15 blows. There is no equivalence; they are not both accidents, though, they may both be unpredicted.

I am not joining in the dog hating thing, like i say there are some bad dogs some bad owners and no golden rule

EDIT: On balance you can probably get it under definition 1 above as unforseen but I do no think it is appropriate to call it an accident.
I suppose you could just about scrape my corner incident in [ it would be a weaker argument than yours] as an accident under unforseen/without apparent cause

As an owner of a dog likely to be considered by the ignorant as a dangerous breed, I absolutely agree that ALL dogs should be licensed and chipped. When I got mine from the RSPCA, he was chipped, neutered, I had interviews and home visits before I was allowed to “adopt”.
There is already a dangerous dogs act; pit bulls are illegal. It needn’t go any further with regards to identifying particular breeds.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/girl-six-savaged-dog-attack-040535941.html

Update time

Don Simon
I believe that what you have done in having your dog chipped and registered should count in its favour more strongly. By having it chipped, you can now show that it has a “good record” and this should have been considered in your/its favor.
It is irresponsible dog owners that should have problems with licensing, not people such as yourself, but the system probably needs more investment to allow easier detirmination of who those people are.

loum, she was coming from outside the UK and ALL Spanish dogs are/should be chipped.
I was aware of the UK position as discussed it with, I can’t remember which, an agency and the response was suck it and see…. It won’t hold me back from having another Staffy.

My Staffy was chipped and still the decision was down to the border staff dog expert.

So were you not allowed to bring Kala back to the UK then DS?

😆

Tough call to make though – well done!

Just for interest – when we moved to NZ we had to get our dog registered and she has to wear a tag all the time she is out in public. Not sure if this is the practice across all of NZ bit it is in Auckland.

There are dog attacks literally on a weekly basis here, mostly on children:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/dog20attack/search/results.cfm?kw1=dog%20attack&kw2=&st=gsa

Also, there has just been the first successful prosecution of someone using his dog to attack people:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10779325

There is a lot of cross-breeding for pig-hunting dogs which are usually large, strong and come from breeds with powerful jaws. A lot of them end up being taken and given away by the SPCA due to the conditions they are kept in. I’d take one myself if I could but it’s not practical.

i think it’s fair to say that the prospect of being attacked by one of those types of dogs is a lot more alarming than being attacked by a schnauzer or something but equally if they were cared for properly, looked after properly and taken in public appropriately then there would be much less of an issue. The combination of bad owners and powerful dogs is dangerous.

Doesn’t answer any questions but hopefully it gives some other info on some of the issues raised on here re registration, weapons etc.

accident legal definition
Listen See in a sentence

noun

An unintended, unforeseen, and undesirable event, especially one that causes harm, injury, damage, or loss.
An unintended and unexpected event, especially one that is undesirable or harmful, that does not occur in the usual course of events under the circumstances in which it occurred, or that would not be reasonably anticipated.
In equity, an unexpected and injurious event not caused by misconduct, mistake, or negligence.
In many automobile insurance policies, any unintentional event including those caused by misconduct, mistake, or negligence.

Sounds like an accident to me, well according the the UK legal definition, obviously not according to TJ Law

See if you can borrow some of TJ’s drugs, then you may’be able to live in TJ’s world and get your wish*

* As long as you don’t wear a helmet!