The worst dogs I’ve ever come across are owned by the childless who then treat their dogs like children instead of dogs.

One of my guilty pleasures presently is Canine Intervention on Netflix. One of his mantras is “Treat your dog like a person; how does your dog treat you? Like a dog!” 😀

I think he was saying that we can tell that the dog wasn’t actually trying to bite the child, because the child was never actually bitten? So there was no actual malicious intent, just bad behaviour.

Schrödinger’s dog bite

not read every single page but seems the take away message I can apply to everyday life is I need to educate myself that all the drivers who give me close passes are just playing and don’t mean me any real harm as only a couple of them have ever actually hit me, and none of those killed me.

Furthermore, I should accept that every aspect of society and the environment needs to be designed to cater for their wish to impose their lifestyle choice on everyone else – thats it isn’t it?

I thought the message was every car is going to kill you and you shouldn’t venture out into the world as it’s a dangerous place.

Actually now I think about it I’ve been bitten more times by humans than dogs !! Ok I was drunk a lot in my yoof 🙂

grum
Free Member
 
Quote
Jeez. 🙄Let me simplify it for you;

No, that’s an entirely different statement, may or may not be true, but I’d agree more likely than your last one.

99.5% (another made up stat) of dogs that bite people will have been described as ones that ‘never bite’ or had ‘dont worry he’s just being friendly’ etc said by their owners.

No, it was derived from that Guardian article.

8,000/12,000,000 x100% = 0.06% of dogs (add a for the ones that don’t end up needing medical treatment, the average life of a dog before it bites someone and gets put down etc).

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-alliston-jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian
Herer’s another Guardian article. Shall we have a thread on how we’re all bastards in denial about how we’re going to kill people with our bikes one day. No that would be absurd nonsense, just like your assertion that every dog is out to bite you someday.

Because:

The point is that just because they haven’t yet is no reliable indicator that they won’t.

A 99.94% percent statistic that they don’t, however statistically unreliable and in need of refining, isn’t going to be pushed into the realms of reliably supporting your argument that all dogs are out to bite you. That doesn’t mean you need to extrapolate that to a fear of everyone and everything.

That doesn’t mean you need to extrapolate that to a fear of everyone and everything.

Clearly that isn’t the case, or nobody would go outside. For my part I’d just like people in charge of dogs to recognise that it’s not a genuinely bizarre reaction for someone (of whatever age, but again I’m thinking of my 2 year old here) to be afraid of their beloved pet. And also that saying something like ‘don’t worry they won’t bite’ is an entirely unhelpful response because seriously, how the hell is a toddler going to be comforted by that?

how the hell is a toddler going to be comforted by that?

Next time it could be a child’s fear!

I know it’s completely won’t somebody think of the children but also in this case it’s my child so I don’t care.

good to see a) this is still going and b) turning out exactly as I said on page 5

However, I fear this will just descend into the usual camps; those who can’t understand how anyone can dislike dogs, and those who are indifferent or actively dislike them.

reliably supporting your argument that all dogs are out to bite you.

Sigh. I’ve already said that wasn’t what I said or meant but carry on arguing against your made up version if you like. I’m done.

Funny, I used to think you came across as a reasonable person.

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:
(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

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/dog-breeds-really-do-have-distinct-personalities-and-they-re-rooted-dna

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.